Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the legal-web-slinging dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It now looks like Marvel has a dispute with
Sony over Spiderman. This short
report tells how Sony is trying to take over Spiderman. First we saw the
dispute between Marvel and Stan Lee, and now this."
I've said it before..
by
NanoGator
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Sony's every bit as evil as you guys thing Microsoft is. I don't know why they're not on Slashdot's radar.
The basic gist of the complaint is that they are attempting to rebrand Spiderman as a Sony product. Though I don't have any opinion as to whether they're guilty here or not as I don't have enough info to base an opinion on, I do know that Sony's been complained about before. Anybody remember when they were developing the Super NES CD that never arrived? It fell through because Sony wanted this to be a Sony branded machine. They basically wanted to take over Nintendo's well developed market. Fortunately, Nintendo had the balls to stand up to them. That's indirectly how Sony came around with the Playstation.
Slashdot really should be eyeballing Sony. Sometimes you guys pay too much attention to Microsoft.
-- "Derp de derp."
Re:I've said it before..
by
mojowantshappy
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Mostly because Sony is the big competition for the X-Box, so a lot of anti-microsoft people like to rally behind them (me included).
Also, Sony is quite broken up compared to most companies. They have their movie division, their music division, their computer division, their video games division, etc. So though I really hate Sony's music and movie division, I still like their video game division.
Also, offering linux for PS2 can't hurt.
--
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
Re:I've said it before..
by
JordanH
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Also, offering linux for PS2 can't hurt.
Yeah, they don't oppose and even encourage Linux on the PS2. That's important around here.
Also, they sell (sold? haven't seen one recently) CD-RW drives, DVD-RW drives, MP3 players, etc. even though they are into producing content in a BIG way.
Their laptops are cool (but pricey) and run Linux pretty well.
They just seem to "get it". They may be bare knuckled when dealing with competitors and collaborators, but they make/sell and support things that people want, without regard to some grand lockin strategy. Unlike certain Massive Software vendors I can think of.
Re:I've said it before..
by
SarekOfVulcan
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The basic gist of the complaint is that they are attempting to rebrand Spiderman as a Sony product
This is hardly a surprise. My HP2 desk calendar mentions Quidditch(tm), Hogwarts(tm), Hagrid(tm), and others, with fine print at the bottom stating that "characters...are trademarks of and (c) Warner Bros."
Wonder what JKR thinks of all this...
Re:I've said it before..
by
rgmoore
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Okay, find me a Sony brand Digital Camera that supports anything besides Memory Stick.
You mean like the CD Mavica that writes directly to 8cm CD-R disks? Or were you thinking of the FD Mavica that writes directly to floppies?
Actually, I agree with your general point that Sony likes using technology that doesn't always interoperate well, going back at least to the days of VHS vs. Beta. I'm not sure, though, that it's necessarily an issue of trying to lock users in. Sony just doesn't seem to get the idea that standardization can be more important than technical sophistication. They do seem to accept the idea of letting others use their technology. CDs are a great case in point; Sony and Philips developed the basic standards and let others make them too. But when there's not a universally accepted standard, Sony seems to be tenacious at sticking to their version of the technology over an emerging de facto standard than most manufacturers.
--
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Spiderman should be in the public domain by now
by
asscroft
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
All this copyright crap is backfiring on these corporations. It's ridiculous. By now Spiderman is so commonly known that it would be terribly hard to "damage" the image of Spiderman, even if it was "hijacked" by modern day story tellers. I mean the "proper rights owners" killed superman and none of us bought that bullshit, did we? If copyright lasted only the 12 years or whatever it was supposed to last this wouldn't be a problem. Whoever told the best Spiderman story would be king of the box office, not whoever won the court battle.
-- because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
Re:Spiderman should be in the public domain by now
by
iamblades
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, all that's fine and good, but this is about trademarks, not copyright.
Trademark doesnt expire, it gets diluted, and this is probably one of the driving reasons behind this lawsuit.
-- Shit adds up at the bottom...
in my next life...
by
mario
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
..I'll study law and specialize in copyright issues - I think the chances *not* to have a well-paid job are very low, if I look at the numerous stories about problems, that some companies seem to have in this area:)
Re:I remember the day...
by
SoftCoreHonesty
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You must be pretty old because I remember owning Spiderman underoos about 30 years ago. Spiderman became an over-commercialized corporate trademark long before Sony came along. Spiderman, Batman, Hulk, and Superman were all sell outs. Now give me Ghost Rider anyday.
Re:By The Steps:
by
ebbomega
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
By the looks of it, yes. Seemingly, Marvel had a license with Sony about the Merchandise, but now it looks like Sony has broken the terms of that license and now Marvel is asking to have it chucked out. The report has got to be one of the worst written articles I've ever seen and it doesn't explain much, most importantly it seems we have ZERO clue what the main clauses are that are going to be used since it seems that the license may not be publically available until the case itself.
I think it's quite possible that Marvel has a case. Pretty probable too... big companies tend not to go up against bigger better companies that could buy their ass out unless they happen to be faltering *coughSCOcough*.
Marvel's doing better than ever. Movie exposure is enticing more and more people to read superhero comics and it seems to have moved once again away from the stereotypical fanboy and more into the traditional playgrounds of childhood fantasy.
Marvel wouldn't cut the rug out from underneath them by ending a contract with SONY without good reason. Obviously there's tension between the two companies and Marvel wants out of the contract so they can build a better relationship with a different company.
Fine. No real harsh damage done to anything really except that Sony doesn't get a third Spidey movie. I don't even know if Sam Raimi's going to want to touch a third Spidey movie, and most likely there's going to be lots of FUD around a third movie any ways, cuz frankly I don't know if people have forgotten about Batman Forever and Batman and Robin yet.
-- Karma: Non-Heinous
Re:EXLUSIVE DRUDGE REPORT
by
bomb_number_20
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
don't be a fucktard.
Most of drudge's stories are just links to articles in other publications, most of whom get their news through AP or Reuters (their validity is an entirely separate argument). What you're complaining about is the focus he chooses to use for compiling his articles.
sensationalistic? yes. but that doesnt mean he's wrong. the bigger problem is the same one that plagues/., no one bothers to read the articles. they glance at the headlines and then act like they've read the whole thing.
-- That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
I remember when trademarks weren't legal.
by
Syncdata
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Spiderman was a cool comic book because Marvel, not sony, not you, and not some amorphous, non corporate comic machine in the sky, paid cool artists, and cool writers, to produce a cool comic, which had to be printed on a cool press, and distributed nationwide. This takes money, and if Marvel doesn't recieve the fat royalties that come from having a lucrative franchise (are people allowed to have those anymore on/.?)then there will be no more cool comics. I remember when someone could be protective of their own intellectual property, and not be sanctimoniously lectured about it. This is not a troll, though it will likely be modded as such.
-- "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Re:EXLUSIVE DRUDGE REPORT
by
AceM2
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Freakin AC.. It said it *could affect* future financial plans.. Not that Drudge thought SONY would go under just because of a movie. I mean seriously.. If I see a new video card and decide I wanna buy it.. shelling out the $300 out of my checking account is going to *affect my future financial plans*.. As in.. I'm going to have to save more than I planned to buy some new games or whatever.. If you wanna come down on someone for bullshitting, at least have a good reason.
giant screw up
by
BigBir3d
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This entire thing has been f'ed up since the beginning. Stan Lee gave away something he shouldn't have. So did Marvel. IMO, both of 'em are getting what they deserved. Bunch of money hungry, no foresight, whiney bitches.
Stan Lee should have said everything SM related, ever, has my name on it, and I get x%.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony's every bit as evil as you guys thing Microsoft is. I don't know why they're not on Slashdot's radar.
The basic gist of the complaint is that they are attempting to rebrand Spiderman as a Sony product. Though I don't have any opinion as to whether they're guilty here or not as I don't have enough info to base an opinion on, I do know that Sony's been complained about before. Anybody remember when they were developing the Super NES CD that never arrived? It fell through because Sony wanted this to be a Sony branded machine. They basically wanted to take over Nintendo's well developed market. Fortunately, Nintendo had the balls to stand up to them. That's indirectly how Sony came around with the Playstation.
Slashdot really should be eyeballing Sony. Sometimes you guys pay too much attention to Microsoft.
"Derp de derp."
All this copyright crap is backfiring on these corporations. It's ridiculous. By now Spiderman is so commonly known that it would be terribly hard to "damage" the image of Spiderman, even if it was "hijacked" by modern day story tellers. I mean the "proper rights owners" killed superman and none of us bought that bullshit, did we? If copyright lasted only the 12 years or whatever it was supposed to last this wouldn't be a problem. Whoever told the best Spiderman story would be king of the box office, not whoever won the court battle.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
..I'll study law and specialize in copyright issues - I think the chances *not* to have a well-paid job are very low, if I look at the numerous stories about problems, that some companies seem to have in this area :)
You must be pretty old because I remember owning Spiderman underoos about 30 years ago. Spiderman became an over-commercialized corporate trademark long before Sony came along. Spiderman, Batman, Hulk, and Superman were all sell outs. Now give me Ghost Rider anyday.
By the looks of it, yes. Seemingly, Marvel had a license with Sony about the Merchandise, but now it looks like Sony has broken the terms of that license and now Marvel is asking to have it chucked out. The report has got to be one of the worst written articles I've ever seen and it doesn't explain much, most importantly it seems we have ZERO clue what the main clauses are that are going to be used since it seems that the license may not be publically available until the case itself.
I think it's quite possible that Marvel has a case. Pretty probable too... big companies tend not to go up against bigger better companies that could buy their ass out unless they happen to be faltering *coughSCOcough*.
Marvel's doing better than ever. Movie exposure is enticing more and more people to read superhero comics and it seems to have moved once again away from the stereotypical fanboy and more into the traditional playgrounds of childhood fantasy.
Marvel wouldn't cut the rug out from underneath them by ending a contract with SONY without good reason. Obviously there's tension between the two companies and Marvel wants out of the contract so they can build a better relationship with a different company.
Fine. No real harsh damage done to anything really except that Sony doesn't get a third Spidey movie. I don't even know if Sam Raimi's going to want to touch a third Spidey movie, and most likely there's going to be lots of FUD around a third movie any ways, cuz frankly I don't know if people have forgotten about Batman Forever and Batman and Robin yet.
Karma: Non-Heinous
don't be a fucktard.
/., no one bothers to read the articles. they glance at the headlines and then act like they've read the whole thing.
Most of drudge's stories are just links to articles in other publications, most of whom get their news through AP or Reuters (their validity is an entirely separate argument). What you're complaining about is the focus he chooses to use for compiling his articles.
sensationalistic? yes. but that doesnt mean he's wrong. the bigger problem is the same one that plagues
That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
Spiderman was a cool comic book because Marvel, not sony, not you, and not some amorphous, non corporate comic machine in the sky, paid cool artists, and cool writers, to produce a cool comic, which had to be printed on a cool press, and distributed nationwide. /.?)then there will be no more cool comics.
This takes money, and if Marvel doesn't recieve the fat royalties that come from having a lucrative franchise (are people allowed to have those anymore on
I remember when someone could be protective of their own intellectual property, and not be sanctimoniously lectured about it.
This is not a troll, though it will likely be modded as such.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Freakin AC.. It said it *could affect* future financial plans.. Not that Drudge thought SONY would go under just because of a movie. I mean seriously.. If I see a new video card and decide I wanna buy it.. shelling out the $300 out of my checking account is going to *affect my future financial plans*.. As in.. I'm going to have to save more than I planned to buy some new games or whatever.. If you wanna come down on someone for bullshitting, at least have a good reason.
This entire thing has been f'ed up since the beginning. Stan Lee gave away something he shouldn't have. So did Marvel. IMO, both of 'em are getting what they deserved. Bunch of money hungry, no foresight, whiney bitches.
Stan Lee should have said everything SM related, ever, has my name on it, and I get x%.
Ditto for Marvel (with Stan's agreement intact).