Marvel Worldwide, Inc. et al v. Kirby et al - The Final Judgement

When emotion and sentiment was removed the Jack Kirby vs Marvel court case was always going to be a legal long shot for the Kirby estate and Marc Toberoff. The ruling has been handed down and, as expected, unfortunately the Kirby heirs didn’t win. After reading all of the documentation that was submitted in the case I seriously doubted that they would win, but I still held out hope that a miracle could happen. However a court case of this kind is decided on proof, not opinion. A person might know something for a fact, or believe that they do, but unless it can be proven it just remains one person’s word against another, and in this case the best the Kirbys could offer were the testimony of two people who relied on hearsay (Mark Evanier and John Morrow) and three artists, Steranko, Sinnott and Ayers, none of whom could testify that they knew, beyond doubt, how Kirby and Lee worked. If anything their testimony bolstered the Marvel case, as they stated that they never did work on spec and that assignments came from Stan Lee. Evanier and Morrow’s testimony was stricken from the record, mainly because Morrow relied on hearsay and Evanier offered opinion that casted doubt on the credibility of Stan Lee, a man who the court stated ‘was there’ during the time period, unlike Evanier. Indeed the court stated that Evanier formulated opinions despite not being present and as such as no first hand knowledge of how Kirby and Lee worked.

In a damning statement, the court further went on to state that, “ purporting to opine on the credibility of Lee’s testimony, Evanier has improperly usurped the role of the jury.” In any court case this is a massive no-no and as a result of this, and other reasons that you’ll soon read, none of what John Morrow or Mark Evanier can be considered. Attacking Stan Lee might be a popular pastime amongst people, but in a court of law attacking his credibility isn’t enough to, “raise a genuine issue of fact”.  In a court of law opinion is not evidence, it is merely opinion.

Sadly the court has relegated Jack Kirby to that of a mere artist and has reduced his role of co-creator with Stan Lee on some creations, such as Thor, Iron Man and Ant-Man. This is a tragedy indeed, and I’d hope that, at some point, the Kirbys and Marvel can sit down and work towards redressing this oversight. I still don’t believe that Kirby created Spider-Man, but I do believe that he had a strong hand in other characters that Marvel published. The court did state that Kirby and Lee co-created other creations, such as the Fantastic Four, the Avengers, the X-Men, the Hulk and more. That’s a definite win and, now that it’s on the record, this gives the Kirby’s a stronger hand with which to negotiate with Marvel, should they decide to do so.

And let's be very, very clear here - as the judge states in the finding, this case was not about Stan Lee vs Jack Kirby at all, or did Stan Lee create the Marvel Universe or did Jack Kirby create it or was he treated fairly, or is it fair that Marvel make billions from Jack Kirbys vision while the Kirby estate make nothing.  This case was all about whether the work Jack Kirby did in those years between 1958 to 1963 came under the umbrella of 'work for hire' or not.  I'm sorry to say this, but it really was as simple as that. 

Ultimately what let the Kirbys down was the lack of concrete evidence to support their claims. Marvel produced several documents, signed by Jack Kirby, assigning, “any and all right, title and interest [Kirby] may have or control,” in all the work that Kirby created for Marvel. By signing these documents Kirby signed away whatever rights he might have had, and by not being able to produce any form of a contract for the time period in question, the Kirbys were not able to dispute Stan Lee’s claims that Kirby was a freelancer who was hired to draw comic book art. Again, that hurts, but Lee was there, Lee handed the assignments to Kirby and until someone can prove otherwise, beyond doubt, that's what's going to remain.  You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to like it - I certainly don't - but that's how the court sees it.  Unfortunately for the Kirby's there is nobody left living to dispute Stan Lee's version of events.  If only Kirby had filed himself, or when Ros Kirby was alive then the outcome might have been different, perhaps when Lee is gone and more solid evidence comes to light the Kirbys can try again.

The Kirbys also failed on the work for hire claim. Unlike Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, the Kirbys were not able to prove beyond doubt that Jack Kirby created any of the Marvel characters outside of Marvel’s scope. Siegel and Shuster created Superman years before it was bought by DC, there was no evidence that Kirby did the same with any of the characters that he worked on at Marvel. Even Neal Kirby stated that Jack Kirby never, “worked on spec”, meaning that he never brought anything into Marvel, instead he waited for jobs to be assigned to him. Kirby also bore none of the risk associated with publishing the Marvel characters – rather Marvel bore that risk. Again, that cuts through the work for hire argument.

What this all adds up to is that the Kirbys lost and Marvel won. It’s a definite blow against the artists of the Silver and Bronze Ages, but, hopefully, the next time an artist, or writer, goes up against a company they’ll be better prepared and have a stronger case to present. In the meantime I’d not be surprised if the Kirby’s appeal the decision and, as I’ve stated all along, my hope is that the Kirbys and Marvel can work out a solution whereby Jack Kirby is properly given credit on books for the characters that he created, co-created and helped define, and that a financial gratuity is also arranged. But, with this victory in hand, there’s no reason for Marvel to sit down with the Kirbys anytime in the near future. And more is the tragedy.  You'd like to think that, with the court handing down it's findings, this would now go away, but the truth is that this case and the ramifications will be hotly debated for a long time to come with people on both sides of the fence.

So, without any further commentary from me, here's the court's ruling in it's entirety.


Popular posts from this blog


Yogi Bear's Sexuality Explained

We Made The Washington Post!

Previous Posts!

Show more