I don't think things will work out well for Kirby. This could have a huge impact on a huge chunk of intellectual property owned by multiple major companies. Including Disney and some of their major franchises.

I wish Kirby's heirs the best, but they are up against Disney's lawyers, so I'm having little hope.

Still no word yet from SCOTUS on granting cert.

The WGA, DGA, and SAG-AFTRA have filed a joint amicus brief urging SCOTUS to grant cert and settle this copyright transfer termination issue:

www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/hollywood-guilds-want-supreme-court-714104

Meanwhile, SCOTUS did release an opinion in the Aereo case today which illustrates how very willing they are to rewrite or ignore the plain meaning of copyright statutes in order to grant more IP rights to powerful corporations.

And I hadn't noticed this other Hollywood Reporter  item; but it reports SCOTUS actually asked Marvel/Disney to file a reply to the Kirby estate's cert petition.  So that's an indicator that SCOTUS might indeed want to hear this case.  I still reckon they'd ultimately side with Disney if that did happen.

www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/jack-kirbys-heirs-get-huge-712924

That Hollywood reporter article also details how expert/eye witness Mark Evanier filed an amicus brief urging cert which argued that the appellate court misconstured and ignored Kirby's work history.

And also per that item: Bruce Lehman, the former head of the US Patent & Trademark Office filed an amicus brief detailing how the appellate court ignored the plain meaning and legislative history of the copyright statutes in issuing its pro-Disney decision.

Someone explain this to me again. I understand that Marvel owes nearly everything it is to Kirby, just as DC absolutely owes everything it is to Siegel and Shuster, but these people all signed contracts and agreed to the terms, ownership-issues, and compensation they have now spent decades trying to fight.

The Superboy angle aside (I get the legitimate complaint from Siegel and Shuster on that one) On what basis do they have cases?

I'm pretty sure there was an official contract between Siegel/Shuster and DC for the rights to Superman. Relatively sure I read that somewhere.

As for Kirby and Marvel, so essentially, even though it was understood by all parties back then that Kirby did not own the rights to these characters, there was no contract, so the Kirby family is pursuing anyway since they feel that Kirby's work is a large part of what made Marvel what it is?

I'm generally not a defender of the Big Two's treatment of their employees, but, in this case, I can't say I see the Kirby family's side of the argument. I completely understand looking at the amount of money your work has made for a company and saying, "Hey, that's MY work. It would sure be nice if I could have profited from it," but Kirby knew what he was agreeing to, even if he didn't know how lucrative his work would prove to be.

Of course, that's my ethical take on the matter. Legally, if there was no contract signed, then the Kirbys likely have a case, even if Disney's financial might will likely put a stop to it.


So one wrong isn't right if it's used to squelch another wrong that isn't right even though it's in response to a third wrong.

Okay, I'm confused...

Yes,as far as i know Kirby was a freelancer,no contracts or agreements with Marvel when he returned to that compant from 1958 up through that check signing formality in the late 60s. In the late 70s or early 80s,Marvel began to pressure kirby into signing special papers that relinguished all his rights retro-actively. Marvel refused to give Kirby back his original artwork (like they began to do at this point with other artists) until he signed those papers. This is when Kirby quit Marvel again and began working for Pacific Comics and animation. Marvel was despicable holding his original art as hostage

The 1976 Copyright law had clauses about the return of copyright to the original party after a certain amount of years for older material. That is the law the Kirby heirs are basing the lawsuit on,saying Kirby is the original party