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."
Lee and Marvel shafted Jack big time during the 60s. Jack did 90% of the work while Stan took 90% of the credit. It's about time he gets the recognition and money he deserves. Too bad he didn't live to see it. I had the pleasure of meeting him once, he was a lovely, soft spoken man.
Neither the summary nor the article (I know...) mention what it's going to cost the heirs to get the rights back. TFA states that they can regain control a certain period after the grant of rights had been made, but is this just a normal end of the contract or do they have to buy it back? In the article Disney is quoted as saying they knew this was coming, so I'm guessing this is just the normal end whatever contract the film companies had to license the characters. Are there any IP lawyers who could shed some light on this?
That was Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.
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.
If anything will get the length of copyright reduced back to reasonable levels, it'll be creators reclaiming their IP from big business. Then it'll enter into public domain and big business will probably just settle it via trademark legislation as they divide up public domain.
Well. This should be interesting.
I wonder what Kirby's kids will do with the licensing money for the Kirby co-creations that've become major movie franchises if they win this. It'd be nice to hope that they use a little of it to create a non-profit that helps fund innovation in comics like Eastman did after he ran out of things to spend his TMNT money on; Jack was an amazing fountain of ideas and I think that'd be a great way to honor his memory.
egypt urnash minimal art.
I really hope this forces Marvel to rethink their strategy. I love comics. I don't like super hero books. Super hero books that run for hundreds of issues with no coherent message or vision suck. I don't care if the current run is good, or if it used to be good years or even a few issues ago. Marvel needs to get back to it's roots selling comics that everyone wants to read, not just 30 something fanboys who obsess over whether or not Kevin Smith did justice to the Green Arrow.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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
Newly discovered documents show that Hans Christian Andersen actually published his works under an Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike licence.
Disney made this press release: Oh shit!
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.
Oh, my. I remember lawsuits involving Jack Kirby and Marvel of the 1980's, when he was still alive.
For those of you who've not made friends with authors and artists, it's very common for companies to really screw the authors who create their most valuable intellectual properties. For any of us who've worked on a major software or hardware project and had it dropped by a VP whose goals it doesn't fit, or have a mediocre middle manager take credit for it, you can sympathize with what happens to these artists.
This doesn't mean that Jack's heirs have a real case, but be aware that Marvel and Jack had some serious disagreements about intellectual property and artwork ownership during his lifetime, and a lot of artists believed that Jack was screwed, really hard, by Marvel's last generations of leadership during his life.
This is what the copyright kings might call "The Heir of the Dog that bit you in the ass."
This has to be some sort of play to get more money for the rights than they are already getting and I think they should certainly go for it.
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 agree wholeheartedly. Disney only furthers the idea that "cartoons and animation are for kids." Or the clinically brain dead. Groups like Pixar and studio Ghibli, on the other hand, continue to prove that something can be "family friendly" and still be entertaining for everyone.
But Disney is too busy selling Disney Princess Makeup Kits and Hanna Montana DVDs to give two shits about the actual quality of what they produce.
It won't be either. One will take the other's head and their memories after a long hard battle in a phenomena known as the quickening.
The Kirby heirs are doing this pursuant to 17 USC 203, if anyone is interested.
The gist of it is, for works not made for hire, where the author licensed or sold his copyrights to someone else (except via a will), the author, or his heirs or estate, can get together and terminate the license or sale. It has to be done within a certain window of time, and it requires a sufficient number of heirs to agree to it, and there are some procedural steps that have to be taken. And this can be done even if the author signed an agreement that expressly said that he would not do this.
I am all for reforming copyrights to something sensible in both length and scope, and I am concerned at the political power wielded with regard to copyright by publishers. However, I have to side against the authors on this sort of thing. While it might be fun to see someone stick it to Disney, it's ultimately a bad policy.
If an author willingly signs an agreement transferring or licensing his copyright to someone else, then that agreement should remain valid. If the author wants to reserve a right to terminate the transfer or license because some sort of condition arises (e.g. licensing fees are no longer being paid), or arbitrarily at some point in time, then it should be written into the agreement. No one is forcing authors to sign these things; no one is forcing authors not to have an attorney help them out with it. If a contract is one sided, don't sign it. Hash out a more agreeable agreement or walk away. And if your bargaining positions are unequal, well, welcome to the real world; this happens a lot.
To have a law that mandates that authors can cancel their contracts at will, with no particular repercussions for them is offensively paternalistic. Authors should not be universally treated like children, able to escape their commitments. They are not any more or less sophisticated in their business dealings than any other ordinary person, who is not treated so astonishingly favorably by the law.
Further, it is unjust. While an author certainly is essential in the success of a particular creative work, publishers also often make invaluable contributions. To the extent that their agreements with authors permit them to do so, I think it is completely fair for them to share greatly in the rewards. Publishers that contribute little will tend to not be in as favorable a position to benefit as the publishers that contribute a lot. Authors who don't want to have to pay or share profits with publishers can always self-publish. It is entirely doable, but the difficulty tends to be off-putting. So long as it is the decision of the parties involved, and not of Congress, it's okay.
In this case, suppose that Kirby had never worked for a comic book company, but instead had started his career by self publishing comics. Would he have achieved so much success, thereby indicating that his estate deserves to profit from his comics and characters alone? I doubt it. So did Kirby, apparently; he chose not to go that route, and instead worked for publishers for whatever pay or other compensation both sides found agreeable.
For the Kirby estate to wrest away control of the work Kirby did under contract with Marvel, in contravention of contracts willingly entered into by both sides that state otherwise, and with no other penalties is just not fair, and the law should not permit it. It is no different than if Alice sold land to Bob, Bob invested in the land raising its value, and then Alice snatched it back contrary to the original agreement.
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.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
So? What's the point of building an estate if you can't pass it to your children?
Intellectual work is not part of an estate. It does not diminish if shared, it is often built on the work that others have shared freely and, in the case of entertainment, is what it is because of its audience.
If you want to leave behind an estate, make money and pass that on. To consider intellectual works part of an estate diminishes human capital and is an insult to those who created it - for it means that achievements can be appropriated by those who had no part in it.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Groups like Pixar and studio Ghibli, on the other hand, continue to prove that something can be "family friendly" and still be entertaining for everyone.
Which is why Pixar vets don't currently control Disney, and Disney itself doesn't distribute Studio Ghibli films in North America OH WAIT
Yes.
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
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 got into that argument of semantics about 17 years ago in high school, she said rape meant the sex act, I said it could mean forcibly carried away.
She kept arguing so I raped her all the way to the dictionary.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
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.
Burma Shave
Too bad your analogy sucks in 18 different ways. First, a brick wall doesn't continually generate money. Copyrighted works do, as long as there are customers to buy them. Second, you might have a point if it was a matter of an author's heirs holding onto the rights vs them sliding into the public domain. But that's not the case - it's heirs vs a famously greedy conglomerate.
The Japanese, and to a lesser extent East Asian, Manga industry has been doing things like this for decades. Issues from the topical to the seemingly unpresentable. Remember the manga guide to statistics. By contrast, the now stagnant meme of superheros has proven itself utterly unable to discuss any topic that does not somehow involve men in leotards fist fighting one another.
The biggest problem with the western comic book industry is that it is not seen as a legitimate medium for adult discouse. It is not seen this way because publishers and writers deliberately market and censor their products for consumption by teenagers with their parents approval. The utter stagnancy of the American comic book industries is a testament to how successful this strategy has been in killing creativity. How many generations of artists have spent their lives drawing comics of characters invented by people 70 years ago?
Comics are a very legitimate medium, and a very powerful one. When the 9-11 commission sought a way to present their mammoth 571 page report to the wider public, they turned to the medium of comic books. Some people had the gall to ridicule them, but it was an incredibly brave and shrewd decision. The graphic novel of the findings is a power educational tool against the inevitable 9-11 conspiracy theorists. It was, all things considered, the single best way to tell the story of that day.
Comics are a medium of human communication. So is cartoon animation. The industrialisation of the comic book and animation industries in the Western world has robbed us of this medium. Because of the paranoia of 1950's American society, and the capitulation of the industry to hysteria like Comics Code Authority, the power of the medium comics, seen daily in newspapers across the country, is unable to be brought to bear in any arguments above the briefest of lengths. We are living with the bad decisions made by people 60 years ago and the effect of industry monopolisation and we are worse off because of it.
May the Maths Be with you!
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.
You jest, but the RCA Corporation did *exactly* that in the 1930s with FM Radio. They were afraid it would kill their dominance in the AM market so they kept the FM intellectual property under wraps for as long as possible. And when the actual inventor tried to develop FM independently, they sued him again-and-again until he was a broken man. Not until he died did RCA bring FM to the marketplace.
Never underestimate corporate deviousness. It's as bad as government, minus the ability to send you to the jail, or suck money from your wallet.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You *do* realize that Disney makes these films to children, right? Are you going to criticize children's books next for having an overwhelmingly large number of talking animals?
Try reading Spiegelman's Maus, or Alan Moore & Eddie Campbell's From Hell, before you characterize all comics as not "real books". There's a whole world out there without superheroes in it.
Indeed they do. But Disney doesn't directly control what Pixar creates. They're more or less given total creative freedom.
In this instance, Disney is really just a distributor, not a producer.
See what I said above:
This is Disney being a distributor, not a producer. They're not over at Pixar/Ghibli telling them what to put in their movies, they just slap their names on the boxes, put out the ads, and ship them out.
This is too funny for words. The very studios who have essentially screwed everyone else over with unconstitutional copyright "reforms" and "extensions" are now about to get royal screwings of their own. Not that any of this helps the common citizen or does anything to enhance the Public Domain, but it is still fun to watch.
Funniest statement of all is Disney's CYA about how they had already factored all of this in when they offered billions for Marvel.
Definitely the best thing since eBay bought Vonage without getting the rights to the code that runs it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"Too bad your analogy sucks in 18 different ways. First, a brick wall doesn't continually generate money. Copyrighted works do, as long as there are customers to buy them"
only because they are *copyrighted* - if walls had the same protection
they would generate revenue forever too (cause walls are damn useful)
this is circular reasoning not criticism
We didn't ask Stan or Jack or anyone else to make us a comic with a spider mutant in it. Without them, we wouldn't have that as a part of our culture. Like it or not, the parts of a culture which hold us together are those things we can share everywhere.
A wall is a known thing, and if I want one built I can stab the guy who made it and get someone else to build the same thing. They'd be different, but not in any way that's important. No child is going to want to grow up to be a plaster wall.
You can't stab Beethoven or Jack Kirby or Marilyn Monroe or Pablo Neruda and have someone else step in and make it work. We know what happens when they change directors on a trilogy even - not the creative mind behind the work, or the writer, just some schmoe they brought in to turn a script into a movie.
People do things differently, and sometimes the works resonate with people, and have value above that of their materials, or the work it would take to recreate it. This is called intellectual property, it has value, and it can be handed down from a father to his son just like a piece of gold or a hot rod. The difference is, at some point in its life it stops belonging to you. Yes, the government takes your intellectual property and gives it to the masses. How socialist of them! Of course, the creator is most likely dead by then, and he can no longer hand it down through the generations like a piece of gold. Instead, the people get to do with it as they wish. If it still has value, it must be a powerful artifact and worthy of keeping around and alive for so long. Let's face it, Britney Spears is not going to be all the rage when her copyrights expire, but someone will. And whatever that is will someday be as free as a Martin Luther speech, or Dante's Inferno, or The Holy Bible, a Bach Sinfonia, or a Van Gogh painting. All because of these words the founding fathers wrote: "... for a limited time". If you don't like it, find a country with a Constitution you approve of. Unless you're already in one and your rant is sour grapes, if so then neener neener.
Sounds like Kirby's looking for a little bit more of the pie he helped bake.
Didn't even RTFT, eh? :P
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
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.
the very basis of copyright in the United States is encouragement of innovation.
Well, that's half anyway; really the basis of copyright is encouraging authors to create and publish the most, in exchange for the least copyright, so as to maximize the net public benefit. Both creation and publication are necessary elements of good copyright policy. A work cannot benefit the public unless it is both created, just so it exists, and published, so that people beyond the author can actually get and use it.
When an author has created a work that they sell after the fact, however, they absorbed a considerable amount of the risk by taking the time to create something without any pay at all. ... But when they come up with something marketable, suddenly publishers want control.
Well sure. The authors are self-interested; having created a work, they want the benefits that a professional publisher can bring to the table -- inexpensive printing in bulk, good marketing, arrangements with lots of retail operations to get the work out to the public -- without wanting to cede the rewards that the work can bring them.
And likewise, the publishers are self-interested, perhaps being able to obtain a good work without having incurred any risk in its creation (though this is not always so; the recording industry has some interesting financial practices) they'll want to invest as little as possible into getting it into the marketplace, but get as much of a reward from this as possible.
No one can force the two parties to make an agreement they don't find acceptable. And there are plenty of authors out there. And plenty -- though somewhat fewer -- publishers. And there is the option to self-publish.
So while each side goes into negotiations seeking to get the best deal for themselves, mutually agreeable deals are entirely possible, with plenty of alternatives if it doesn't work out.
I don't see a problem with any of this.
Unfortunately, a lot of other IP industries have yet to catch on that creators should be treated well.
Creators should not be treated well merely because they are creators. Certainly it is not in the interests of any publisher to treat artists one iota better than the bare minimum they can get away with. A generous publisher runs a risk of being a badly run business, which leads to being an ex-publisher. Of course, I'm not saying that the publisher should go about whipping its authors, just that once an author worth keeping happy is made happy, it isn't necessary to make him any happier. There's no percentage in that. A publisher who wastes his resources doing that will be at a disadvantage in the marketplace, and either go out of business, or have to stop being so nice.
Anyway, the ability to take back a work that was not made for hire, but has instead been licensed, is not about deal-breaking. It is about preventing companies from taking a disproportionate share of the profits from the owner, who is the person we intended to incentivize.
It is about nothing other than deal-breaking.
The author was incentivized to create the work, because he did in fact create the work. The Constitution mandates that the copyright initially vest in the author. What the author decides to do with it after that point is entirely up to him. If he sells it for a mess of pottage, then that's his mistake.
But if a property becomes massively successful, why should a bunch of managers and lawyers who probably weren't even born when the property was created be entitled to perpetual profits?
Because the author apparently misjudged the value of his copyright. He should've held out for more. The publisher apparently was the wiser party to the agreement. But it was a voluntary agreement. No one twisted the arm of the author. He was happy enough with the deal to sign on the dotted line. Hindsight is no excuse for breaking the deal without consequences.
Remember also that the mere creation of a work isn't the only
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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
"First, a brick wall doesn't continually generate money."
Neither does a copyrighted work - it *transfers* money from one person to another. The total amount of money in the cosmos remains constant. Actually, since the transaction itself imposes a processing cost, I'd say money was lost to entropy.
Now, bank loans - those do generate money, for some definition of 'money'. They also destroy money when the loans come due, apparently.
But perhaps you were thinking about generating *wealth* rather than merely reallocating money? I'd say the most obvious thing that does that is living biomass - food and medicine. But shelter for sentient beings would have to come a close second.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Every fucking feature length cartoon of even a story like Pocahontas (which was so obnoxiusly inaccurate in every other respect) requires singing fucking animals
Whoooa, I think I missed that part! Are you sure you weren't watching the porn spoof, Poke-a-Hotass or something?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I have eliminated most of my commentary to present this analysis of Marvel motion pictures released since 2000. I mark that time period as the beginning of Marvel Entertainment's ability to bring characters and stories to life in a way they were never capable of before.
1. X-Men (2000) - 80% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/xmen/. Released in July with a budget of US$75mil, it grossed more that US$296mil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_film without Arad and Lee on production.
2. Spider-Man (2002) - 90% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman/. Released in May with a budget of US$140mil, it grossed more than US$821mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_(film)
3. Daredevil (2003) - 44% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daredevil/. Released in February with a budget of US$78mil, it grossed more than US$179mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_(film)
4. X2: X-Men United (2003) - 88% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x2_xmen_united/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2:_X-Men_United
5. The Hulk (2003) - 61% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hulk/. Released in June with a budget of US$137mil, it grossed more than US$245mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_(film)
6. The Punisher (2004) - 29% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1131721-punisher/. Released in April with a budget of US$15mil, it grossed more than US$54mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Punisher_(2004_film)
7. Spider-Man 2 (2004) - 94% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/. Released in June with a budget of US$200mil, it grossed more than US$783mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_2
8. Electra (2005) - 10% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/elektra/. Released in January with a budget of US$43mil, it grossed more than US$56mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektra_(2005_film)
9. Fantastic Four (2005) - 26% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fantastic_four/. Released in July with a budget of US$100mil, it grossed more than US$330mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four_(film)
10. X-Men The Last Stand (2006)- 56% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_men_3_the_last_stand/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2_(film)
11. Spider-Man 3 (2007) 62% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/. Released in May with a budget of US$258mil, it grossed more than US$890mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikip
- 6 out of 15 films had budgets of US$100 or less. Out of those 6 films, all were first installments.
That should have read "... had budgets of US$100mil or less..."
Phenomenon. Phenomenon. Phenomenon is singular, phenomena is plural.
Thank you, that is all.
*smells karma burning*
Odd, considering that showing either on the Disney Channel is likely illegal.
But then, are they TAKING things from the Public Domain, or are they taking steps to PREVENT things from moving to the public domain? Has there been any examples of things that moved into public domain, but then retroactively became private again after legislation changes?
Cos if they're just preventing things from going into public domain, then thats not the same as taking things from the public domain.
If we're going to argue semantics, that is.
Here, let me google that for you. Yes, there are taxes, just like any other kind of property. The first two links in the search above give a good overview of these issues.
I'm always positive; it's my nature.
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.
I can't stand most of the stuff Disney puts out either, but isn't this a fairly big point. Disney own copyright on the characters and the art work, not on the story. Actually there are a two or three movies a year that rehash, remix or reset Snow White and Cinderella. No one has to pay Disney to make those.
And if they Disney versions are so saccharine as we both agree, what does it matter if they own the imagery? Remember even if they do, parody is fair use. It seems to me inconsistent to say that something is devoid of merit and the problem is that people are not allowed to copy it.
In fact it reminds me of the joke "The restaurant was bad. The food was vile -and the portions were too small"
Incidentally much of the debate on copyright here seems to fall into this trap. To be brutally honest there are two types of culture. One is hyped by a multinational like Disney. It is popular for a short time during which its corporate owner will jealously guard rights to it. After that it will likely disappear without trace. Basically this is pump'n'dump applied to culture.
There's another sort of culture, classical music and literature, decent paintings and the like that is hyped by no one and owned by no one. The only reason people still talk about it is because it is good. Actually most culture is not pump and dump culture - it's just that the media concentrates on hyping ephemera because people pay them to do so.
Now the problem here is that people complain like mad about the pump'n'dump form of culture being awful and they're right. Still if it is so awful, why does it bother you so much that it is not in the public domain? Why not just ignore it completely?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Class envy and flamebait? No. I wrote this, because it's my belief having a permanent aristocracy is poison to a country and not in anyone's best interest, and large scale inheritances perpetuate a permanent upper class. I was writing in a general sense, referencing this specific issue - I guess folks interpreted this as flamebait. Oh well.
On a macro-level, capitalism allocates the resources to those who deserve them (i.e. if you're good at business, you make more money, which you then can put back into your business). But there needs to be a way society can collect payment for the infrastructure which allowed for the business success in the first place. The most efficient way to collect the needed funds is to keep those that know how to allocate capital with low taxes, so they can go on and efficiently allocate capital (i.e. low taxes for businesses), but society still needs to pay for the items which made this success possible. The most efficient and sensible way to do that, in my view, is to heavily tax inheritance.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
micro = 10^-6.
Google*Microsoft = 10^96.
Would make for a queer company logo though...
Either someone owns his property or he is simply borrowing it from the state.
BINGO! have you read the US Constitution? It allows authors and inventors limited time monopolies on their writings and discoveries, NOT ownership. And it isn't the government who owns the work, it's the people. Once a work reaches the public domain it belongs to everyone. Not the sate; the state can't even regulate a public domain work.
This "property" belongs to all of us. Its creator only has a limited time monopoly on its distribution. Too bad we, the people, have let them, the corporate greedheads, steal our property and call it theirs.
Free Martian Whores!
Kirby was involved in the creation of both Spider-Man and Iron Man. Yes, Steve Ditko redesigned the character that Kirby created and drew the character's first stories. Don Heck drew the first story appearance of Iron Man because Jack couldn't draw everything. Kirby, interestingly enough, drew the covers for both first appearances of Spider-Man and Iron Man.
This is all well documented with citations on wikipedia.
Joe Simon also had a hand in creating Spider-Man. If you want to go back far enough, there's a pulp character called The Spider that one could argue was partial inspiration for Spider-Man.
-- Boycott Shell
Your question assumes that "one of the women in [his] life" would have sufficient expertise to speak about Disney's copyright tactics. Yet there's no evidence that that's the case, given that most people lack that expertise.
It also assumes that only rape victims have the moral standing and experience necessary to compare things to rape. If the analogy were murder, rather than rape, would you argue that only murder victims should be allowed to speak?
I suppose one could argue that the only person who could evaluate the comparison would be a person (most likely female) who's both a copyright lawyer and a rape victim. No doubt, several of those people exist. Yet even so, this hypothetical person can't speak for all of us, since in forcing the Sonny Bono act et al. upon us, Disney's actions victimize the collective, not just the individual.
No one person can directly articulate the effect those actions have had on public discourse. OTOH, I'm guessing a decent number of people have landed in jail or prison, at least in part because of those laws. Given the state of the U.S. penal system, a few of those inmates have probably been raped, in the most literal sense. Would you speak for them as well?
In other words, you're being every bit as reductive and offensive as the OP (if not more so), and your righteous indignation is both misplaced and of no real help to rape victims, real or hypothetical.
Specifically, he says that securing publication is "half" the reason we have a copyright system in the first place. So I'll say it again: you don't have to publish at all to secure a copyright (as distinguished from patent law), so that must not be "half" the reason we have copyright.
First, I said that encouraging creation and publication was half the reason. The other half of the rationale of copyright is to have as little copyright as possible, if any at all. So I guess that encouraging publication would be more like one quarter.
Second, I think you're assuming that the current Copyright Act is synonymous with good copyright policy. I'd disagree. I've already discussed my reasoning for this in a recent reply post.
A better Copyright Act would grant a provisional right for unpublished but unabandoned works upon creation, so that an author who seeks to publish is not beaten to the punch by someone who has gained access to the manuscript. However, should an author abandon his work unpublished, the work should enter the public domain rapidly in the hopes that someone will do what the author did not, and get that work to the public.
Note that pre-1978 US copyright law only granted protection to registered, published works. Publication was key. But if an author was willing to publish without registering, then he got no copyright. This was appropriate since copyright was meant to encourage creation and publication that otherwise would not occur. An author who would publish without registration apparently needed no encouragement in the form of copyright, so he didn't get one.
This is the sort of thing we need to get back to.
I happen to believe that people will often create without any incentive at all--forgetting this leads to all sorts of strange interpretations of copyright law. The law wasn't made because without it, no one would create. The law was made to incentivize creation, so that it would happen more often. So anything that makes it happen less often would be against Constitutional policy, regardless of whether creation would stop altogether.
Well, I wouldn't say without any incentive at all. There are many 'natural' incentives to create and publish. Some people want to be famous. Some people create art for art's sake. Some people want to make money, but manage to do so in ways that don't involve copyrights (e.g. selling specific copies, taking commissions, providing artistic labor, patronage, etc.). In the case of this discussion, we are all writing copyrightable posts, but I sincerely doubt that any of us would not have written, online discussions even if there were no such thing as copyright at all.
Copyright is just an additional incentive, so regarding it being meant to get creation to happen more often, I agree with you. But that's not enough. We don't merely want creation to happen more often. We want works to be created and published more than they would be otherwise, since a created but unpublished work is of little value to the public. And we want that work to be in the public domain as soon as possible, since any given work is more valuable to the public when in the public domain, than when copyrighted. And we want the copyright to be as minimal in scope as possible, while still acting as an incentive, since more freedom for the public is better than less.
Merely maximizing creation and ignoring the rest would be bad policy.
So while one copyright law might encourage less creation than another, that's not the only basis on which to judge them. It is entirely possible that a copyright act in which there was, oh, 90% as much creation as we currently have, but which had drastically shorter terms, a greater rate of publication of created works, more freedom for the public, etc. could easily be superior to what's on the books today.
He is free to assert that the law is a bad idea, but his position that it is bad because it somehow violates basic contract principles is simply untenable. There are so many laws on the books inv
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.