Sublime Capital, Kirby, Lee, the Worth and the Worthy

[Michael Bailey]

interesting stuff.  I get a kick out of the word
"interpellating"...and how he brings in Terry and the Pirates and how
he details certain class-structure aspects of even comic books (class
structure is one of those things, once seen, that it's really hard not
to see all over the place, isn't it?)

  I guess one goes elsewhere for the details of the case.

http://ifanboy.com/articles/comic-book-casting-the-stan-jack-movie/
this is kind of fun... but still doesn't tell me much about what
actually happened.  I mean, all I know is a lot of people look up to
Stan Lee, I think he was even on Big Bang Theory.

but it looks, from context, like Stan's lawyers prevailed in court to
the detriment of Kirby's interests, and the decision may be contrary
to what I recently learned by studying "Bartleby the Scrivener" might
be called the spirit of "equity"?  (there's a vigorous way to say this
- they screwed him - that I shy away from on 2 counts - first,
"screwing" involves a (usually) clockwise twisting motion that somehow
has never connoted intercourse in any meaningful way for me, and
second, that intercourse is an appropriate metaphor for unjust
treatment...now, "they raped him" might serve...)

so, hmm, let me see...
http://www.annalsofamericus.com/art-department/the-workplace-politics-of-jack-kirby-and-stan-lee/
there's this with a 1987 radio interview with Kirby himself wherein
Stan Lee calls in --
worth a listen?  it's long...

then there's this --
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/08/marvel-v-kirby-work-for-hire-and-copyright-termination/
a review of the legal arguments
-- in which the doctrine of "work for hire" is explained.

Essentially if you work for hire, your claims to ongoing author
royalties are forfeit unless specified beforehand.

There ought to be some kind of anti-freeze-out exception, in the
spirit, not of law, but of "equity", shouldn't there?

that is, if a company is making a lot of money off of something that
somebody made for hire, there are both "soft" and "hard" reasons why
it might want to go beyond the bare requirements of law in sharing
with them

soft reasons
a) sleep better
b) good karma
c) acknowledging value received
d) cast thy bread upon the waters and it shall return to you after many days

hard reasons
a) save court costs
b) attract and keep talent
c) sell to those who base part of their purchasing decisions on such
factors (we do exist)
d) good will and friendship make business (in the narrow view) easier,
and (in the long view) possible at all

that said, and going on to say that it seems entirely meet and proper
to me that all forms of labor should be rewarded with permanent
equity, in fact it seems entirely unreasonable that in the main it
isn't...

so much so - so obvious, every time I think about it - that this
comment I started for another thread fits in better here...



 David Morris found archival Terrance quoting Dali, and wrote:

> According to this theory one should cultivate genuine delusion as in clinical paranoia while remaining residually aware at the back of one's mind that the control of the reason and will has been deliberately suspended. He claimed that this method should be used not only in artistic and poetical creation but also in the affairs of daily life."



-- actually, isn't that the only way to get through the day?