Gary Groth called Shooter “our Nixon” for a reason…..

A quibble:

You would think in a world where the corporation having a contract means they win, the fact there was no contract would mean the freelancer would win, but nope this is Kafka’s AMERIKA we are living in now.

Post-1976, having no contract actually WOULD mean the freelancer would win.  Doesn’t apply in Kirby’s case, more’s the pity, but if the same situation occurred today, the freelancer would maintain ownership.  So that’s some small measure of progress, anyway.

Jim Shooter’s blog has some interesting Kirby stories.

(I think that, long-term, it’ll be a blip on the radar; it’ll have strong immediate sales and then everything will go back to status quo — rather like last year’s New 52.  DC’s current management doesn’t seem very good at long-term thinking; they’re good at ways to make a few bucks fast, but they haven’t worked out how to draw in new readers and keep them.)

But yes, Moore is absolutely pissed about what’s happened with Watchmen.  Gibbons — well, he enthusiastically participated in the movie; he’s given his approval for the prequels but said nothing more about them, which strikes me as something of a tepid endorsement.

It does bear remembering that Gibbons IS an equal co-creator, and Moore has a pretty checkered history with his co-creators.  He’s disowned Gibbons, Lloyd, and Bissette, to name a few, and refuses even to speak to them anymore.

http://www.tcj.com/marveldisney’s-win-against-jack-kirby-heirs-not-about-fairness/

And before anyone starts up with “poor beleaguered Disney was only defending itself against the greed of the powerful and wealthy Kirby Empire, which filed notices of termination which forced brave little Disney to squash them like a bug” — someone always goes there, in every comment thread anywhere on this topic — Disney could have done the *right* thing and reached a settlement that merely gave Kirby the same degree of credit for his creations Stan Lee always gets.  Or indeed, just retroactively give Kirby the same deal that today’s creators get from Marvel!  They could have made millions in good PR for a fraction what it costs them to keep fighting the same battles in court every decade.  But it’s not in Disney’s corporate DNA to ever do that.  And that’s why the Mouse is in that strip.

And it’s especially bad when it’s coming from companies who peddle stories about SUPERHEROS. Who fight crime and injustice.

Right now they’re still doing this shit. DC’s doing “Before Watchmen” in part to keep on owning the characters long past the original intent of the contracts Moore and Gibbons signed. Marvel’s sued one of the dudes who created “Ghost Rider” into oblivion.

Stan Lee gets a million dollars a year.  And if he dies before his wife does, then SHE gets a million dollars a year until SHE dies.

Kirby should have been given the same deal.

Kirby got the short end of the stick – but so did most of the early creators. I bet most of the creators had no idea their characters would last become so popular – that comics in general would last this long.

What’s more interesting is that Kirby’s become an object lesson for what newer artists don’t want to become, and the internet is providing the means.

What’s more interesting is that Kirby’s become an object lesson for what newer artists don’t want to become, and the internet is providing the means.

I’m not joking.

Reminds me of this recent comic by Cliff Galbraith about Stan Lee and Kirby http://ratbastardcomics.com/2011/10/12/piece-for-jack-kirby-tribute-gallery-show-at-maxwells-for-ny-comic-con/

There’s no evidence that Kirby signed any contract with Marvel prior to 1975, back-of-the-check or otherwise.

Publisher: “Well, then! By all means, please go f*ck yourself.”