Slashdot Mirror
Jack Kirby Heirs Reclaim Marvel/Disney Rights
lbalbalba writes "Heirs to comic book legend Jack Kirby sent 45 notices of copyright termination to Marvel Entertainment, prospective Marvel buyer Disney, Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, and others studios that that hold licensed media rights to Marvel characters. Some rights could revert to the heirs as soon as 2014, for characters that are among the hottest in Hollywood: The Incredible Hulk, The Mighty Thor, Iron Man, Spider-Man, The Avengers, and others. Among other things the heirs' demand could cause problems for Disney's as yet unconsummated purchase of Marvel."
What should worry you is the fact that, thanks to Disney and massive amounts of bribery to congress, "copyright" now means that works don't pass into the public domain for nearly a century.
Disney, and their friends, have quite literally raped the public domain dry and given nothing back.
I can't fault Kirby's heirs for trying to regain some form of control on characters who have been treated like shit for years, but realistically, the characters themselves would be public domain by now in any sane system.
No, it shouldn't matter to you.
But it is of interest to others around here.
Believe it or not, some people who read/post here are a little on the nerdy side. And some of them read comic books.
Then there's the occasional person who just comes on to a site labeled "News for Nerds" to attempt to boast about how he's not really interested in a specific aspect of nerd subculture.
Those people are sad. They are nerds, but rather than revel in it, they are desperately trying to convince themselves they're not.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
"Give us money so we go away!"
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Don't you have that backwards? Although the ideal is to let these works become public domain upon the artist's death, the second best choice for holder of the copyrights should be the SON of the creator, not some cold soulless corporation.
But don't worry. I'm sure Marvel and Disney will ultimately win. At the end of the day the artist/singer/inventor and his family almost-always get the shaft, and the corporations almost-always win by bribing the appropriate politicians. Look at what happened to the inventor of FM Radio (bled dry in lawsuit-after-lawsuit by 1930s-era RCA until he eventually died - then they took over FM Radio for themselves).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Because he can and he should. What's the point of licensing a character if the licensee could wait for you to die and say "ha ha" and continue using that character?
Probably, but hey what's wrong with that? You don't seem to mind the movie studios making money from the characters. He most likely would like to protect the legacy of the comic book characters, and as a consequence the continued value of the character in the comic book marketplace.
So? What's the point of building an estate if you can't pass it to your children?
How so? His father actually created the comic book characters, not patented them and wait for something to come up with a similar idea.
I see nothing wrong here. The movie studios are having to follow the rules that THEY created...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Copyrights will do nothing to keep Marvel/Disney from ruining these franchises. You have to take the trademark.
>>>Disney is quoted as saying they knew this was coming
And the rest of that, which was muttered under their breath, was: "We've already bribed the appropriate politicians and judges, so we're certain of victory. It's good to be a megarich megacorporation. Money is power to run the government."
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Copyright issues have become increasingly difficult for Hollywood, as it continues to trade on characters and stories that were created decades ago, but are now subject to deadlines and expiration dates under federal copyright law.
Copyright issues would become easy again if copyrights ever expired and the copyrighted material entered the public domain. Of course, Hollywood has worked to try to keep that from happening. The lesson Hollywood will take away from this is: get Congress to overhaul copyright law so that nothing ever expires.
Or did they already manage that, and the Kirby properties are only expiring because they are old?
I know that copyrights used to need to be registered, and could be renewed only once, and the total life of a copyright was thus limited. Now copyright is automatic and lasts for the life of the creator of the work plus 95 years. (Likely this will be extended again, right around the time Mickey Mouse would enter the public domain... 2023, I think.)
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
I don't think there's anything stopping you from mounting your own take on, say, on Snow White or Cinderella. The problem is that Disney managed to get something of a stranglehold on the imagery.
What I despise about Disney is singing animals. Every fucking feature length cartoon of even a story like Pocahontas (which was so obnoxiusly inaccurate in every other respect) requires singing fucking animals. In the Hunchback of Notre Dame, they altered the rule slightly and had singing fucking gargoyles, but the effect is the same.
Disney degrades everything it touches. It's run by some of the most vile, cynical bastards the entertainment industry ever produced (and that's saying something). It isn't the public domain these repugnant monsters rape, it's cultures. I quite frankly shiver at the thought of them taking any more popular stories from the fables and myths any more cultures and twisting them by their sheer hatred of anything that doesn't have singing fucking animals into grotesque caricatures.
Maybe in the early days there was a great artistic impulse, but even ol' Walt himself pretty much gave up the ghost after Pinocchio and it all turned into unforgivable pap, endlessly recycling the inventiveness of the early years.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
for Superman/Superboy lawsuits.
First rename the characters or change the character to a different person being that character. Then drag the case on for years until a settlement is made.
Incredible Hulk, The Mighty Thor, Iron Man, Spider-Man, The Avengers, and others.
Bruce Banner is no longer The Incredible Hulk, the Rulk or Red Hulk absorbed his gamma powers and Skar The Hulk's son will replace the Hulk.
The Mighty Thor, Thunderstrike or Beta Ray Bill will have to sub in for Thor.
Iron Man, Tony Stark got lobotomized in trying to erase the super hero registration list from his head, Pepper Potts has her own suit of armor and James Rhodes can take over as War Machine for Iron Man.
Spider-Man, Eddie Brock is now Anti-Venom, can sub for Spider-Man as Peter Parker quits or loses his powers again. Either that or another Ben Reilly Spider-Clone.
The Avengers have changed so much, right now the Dark Avengers are fighting the New Avengers, but they could easily change the group's name to the Challengers or Defenders like the other groups Kirby didn't invent.
Captain America, James "Bucky" Barnes is the new Captain America and was The Winter Soldier. Steve Rogers is dead, but they are trying to bring him back, doubts are in if he'd still be Captain America or let Bucky keep the uniform. Other men have been Captain America in the past. The 1950's Captain America is still alive with Steve Roger's face.
Most of those characters have been so radically changed that they don't resemble the Kirby versions anymore. Besides I thought Stan Lee and Steve Ditko did Spider-Man and not Jack Kirby.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I have always wondered, why exactly, because for me, comic books are for those who are literacy-challenged and/or don't have a developed fantasy.
For you, maybe. Others aren't so narrow minded, and realise that like any other expressive medium, comics can be used to cover the entire artistic range, from high art to complete crap. Only some of them "are for those who are literacy-challenged and/or don't have a developed fantasy."
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
You know. You're exactly right. It's not fair.
Just the other day, I saw a man building a wall on the outside of someone's house. I thought to myself, that wall is increasing the value of this property and indeed all the properties around it by a considerable amount. Why should that man be satisfied with just one payment. His wall could last forever. Shouldn't his creativity and hard work be rewarded during that time? The owner of that house an others nearby should pay that man a fair licence fee for his work for the rest of his life.
Your argument has further persuaded me that not only should they pay the money to the wall builder, but also to his heirs. After all, they are his family, and he was working for them while he built those walls. True, they didn't lay a brick themselves, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to profit from their father's honest labour till the end of their days. And their heirs in turn should be able to enjoy the benefits. It's their moral right.
When I think how copyright has consistently delivered fresh innovation and content in the form of superheroes like Superman(1938), Batman(1939), and Spiderman(1962), I realise that the joy they ring to millions should mean financial benefit for the children, grandchildren, and great grand children of the authors. Who knows? Maybe with all the money they earn and such solid intellectual property rights, they'll go on to produce other famous superheroes who careers will last longer than most nation states. After all, copyright is the great motivator of new creative content!
May the Maths Be with you!
I realize you intended this as flamebait, but you are hardly a capitalist.
Either someone owns his property or he is simply borrowing it from the state. The former is the heart of capitalism. The latter is socialism.
If someone truly owns his property, then it is his to do with as he sees fit. That includes giving it to his children when he dies. If he is only borrowing it from the state, however, then it is quite right to take it back when he dies.
Part of why parents work so hard is to provide for their children. Is it ok for parents to provide for their children? What about parents who die when the children are still young? Should the money be taken back as soon as they are 18?
If you get an inheritance and decide to give most of it to the state, that's fine. When I see you giving a hundred million of YOUR inheritance back to the state so you can live off your own labor, I'll consider your ideas seriously. Until then, I'll accept that they are just the result of class envy.
Hard decision whether to mod this or comment, so I chose to comment so I can correct the erroneous information here.
What you wrote is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. Intellectual property and intangible assets are absolutely part of one's estate (and also come into play in divorce proceedings, for that matter -- See the divorce of Tom Clancy) and are recognized as such under the law. If you disagree on a moral level with this practice, that's another matter, but to state that "it is not part of an estate" is spreading misinformation. I work at an IP consulting firm, and we are frequently asked to value intellectual works for use in estate planning. These can range from rights of publicity, to copyrights/copyrighted works, to trademarks, among other assets.
You say that "to consider intellectual works part of an estate diminishes human capital and is an insult to those who created it." I think you have this backwards. When the esteemed playwright George Abbott died, for example, his estate was left with the rights to his many copyrighted plays, which could then earn them royalties on performances. Similarly, after Marlon Brando's death, the demand to use his name and likeness did not immediately disappear. His heirs controlled his rights to publicity and had the power to decide when it was appropriate to use his voice or other personal aspects to endorse products for a fee. Don't you think that Marlon Brando would have wanted his legacy to continue to provide for his loved ones? Wouldn't it be more of an insult to George Abbott (whose "human capital" is at issue) to have his works just be taken away on the day of his death instead of allowing him to build something that could continue to benefit his family?
Copyright law may be totally frakked in its current iteration, but that is a completely separate issue. The fact is, people work to build an estate -- but this work does not always take the same form. Some people build corporations, invest is stocks, or gather cash; others create works of art. You would never just assume that a corporation should automatically become public because the owner died, so why should that novel or that play immediately lose all of its value to the owner? Somebody spent their life working on that (instead of pursuing other avenues of wealth accumulation) so those assets are what they have to pass along in their estate -- Or should everyone just give up creating original works to pursue entrepreneurial or big business goals so they can provide for their families after they are gone?
I'm always positive; it's my nature.
Maybe comic book characters are a dime a dozen, and marketing really is the most important factor in their success.
"If you want to be able to end an agreement after you make it, make that part of the agreement. Otherwise, well, you'll know better next time."
Well, Marvel entered into that contract knowing full well that the family could petition for the rights after the authors death. They knew that regardless of what they contract said, under federal law the rights they were purchasing would be for only a limited time after Kirby's death. They knew that if they wanted to continue to have those rights after his death they would have to pay for them. They knew what the copyright laws were at the time to contract was signed, and that should have been calculated into the price they were willing to pay for the rights.
Based on both parties knowledge of the copyright law, it would be unfair would to give Marvel a windfall by changing the rules that both parties entered the agreement under.
An old, flawed analogy. I have seen it so many times, it's truly sad that people still come up with it.
This man is ordered to build the wall, and in advance knows how much he's going to get paid - basically no risk there, do the job well and get paid. The owner of the property has a good idea on how much the value is of that wall, based on the effect of the wall and the quality of the workmanship of the mason. The wall wasn't the mason's idea, it was the property owner's idea.
This is similar to a company ordering creative work: think of all the artists working for Disney. They do not get copyrights paid over their arts, they get a salary for what they are doing. The Pocahontas movie was not their idea, it was the company's idea. They just implemented it. Or a research company developing a chip (e.g. ARM), where the designers of said chip do not get royalties but they do get their salary. ARM later tries to make money by licensing that design. Again no risk for the creative people, they have their money in advance. The idea of investing a lot of money in a energy efficient micro processor was also not their idea, they merely implemented it.
When an independent author is writing a book, no-one ordered him to do so. He wants it because he likes it, or because he thinks he has a great idea and a great story to tell and hopes to sell this story. Thus he owns the copyrights, and can license it to anyone he likes. The independent author doesn't get any money for writing the book, he invests a lot of time (and money: to eat and pay the rent while writing) in the book, but has also take a great risk. The book may flop and he ends up with nothing. The book may also become a bestseller, and he ends up rich.
It is basic business here: the greater the risk taken, the greater the potential rewards. That's all. And now please stop that nonsense of wanting to be paid forever for something that someone else asked you to do.
It doesn't make any less sense or more sense for intellectual property either. It's just that we don't typically rent from builders - they do work for hire because that's the standard way of doign business in construction. But a builder *could* conceivably retain ownership of a house and charge rent or licence fee. Arguably that's exactly what some companies do: for example, set up a holding company to construct a new building, keep ownership, and sublet to tenants.
It would probably become a nightmare to manage all the cross-licencing for units smaller than a single building, though. Which is sort of exactly the situation we get with code smaller than independently compiled binary modules - and for some 'remixed' media, like say Mystery Science Theater 3000, where multiple entities own different parts and clearing the individual rights gets tricky.
Hence the situation with things like Marvel and Tolkien. Multiple creative bits added by lots of different builders over time. Even merchandising is a creative act.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
They snatched the property from its owner, extracted economic rent (if you don't know what "economic rent" is, look it up) using it for decades, and now they might have to return control to the creators descendants? What a fucking crying shame.
Where the fuck does this conception that, of all things, contracts must be absolutely fucking sacrosanct come from? Heaven forbid that someone be able to get out from under and abusive and exploitative contract! That'd be the end of society as we know it!
Where do you get that from the legislation? The section you quote starts out:
In the case of any work other than a work made for hire...
It seems works for hire are not subject to transfer, which makes sense since you purchased the work, not licensed the rights to it.
Yeah, sorry, terminology slip due to the fact that the OP was using the term loosely. This wasn't work for hire; Kirby was a freelancer who sold the rights to Marvel.
Yea, my guess that, if lawsuits result, the outcome will depend on whether it was a work for hire or a transfer of rights by a freelance writer.
Realistically, I think Disney will simply settle; it's in their best interest to get clear rights, the cost of which should be rounding error in the purchase price.
The deal will probably be structured to let Disney write off the costs like they do any other cost associated with development; in the end money will change hands to make the problem go away. Not that that's anything new, it's no different than paying a writer to pen a sequel when you get sued over profits and points. You don't care if they never write it, you just make the problem go away in a manner that avoids upsetting your current accounting practices. That's why you gotta love Hollywood accounting, where the more money you make the more you lose (on paper).
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.