Slashdot Mirror


Stan Lee Media and Disney Battle For Ownership of Marvel Characters

An anonymous reader writes "Stan Lee Media and The Walt Disney Co. have taken their arguments to the U.S. Court of Appeals over who owns the rights (and profits) to Marvel characters. Though Disney bought Marvel in 2009, Stan Lee Media (no longer associated with Stan Lee, himself) still claims copyright of the characters."

152 comments

  1. Skimpiest article ever by halivar · · Score: 4, Informative

    No details, nothing about transfer of copyrights, proof of who is successor of interest, nothing. I RTFA and found the summary is pretty much all there is to know. Anyone got a more informative link?

    1. Re:Skimpiest article ever by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Funny

      you read the article?!?!?! you are aware this is slashdot right?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Skimpiest article ever by Compholio · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not a lot better, but some: http://www.denverpost.com/news...

  2. Disney never lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're one of the biggest players in the world. No judge or committee will ever rule against them, and will modify or create new laws to protect the behemoth empire.

    1. Re:Disney never lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An amendment to the Bill of Rights is not out of the question.

    2. Re:Disney never lose by Kneissl · · Score: 1

      If you fight Disney in a copyright battle you will lose.

    3. Re:Disney never lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe a jury will. Stan lee needs to demand jury trail.

    4. Re:Disney never lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not Stan Lee. It's Stan Lee's ex-company Stan Lee Media whom is currently completely unaffiliated with Stan Lee.

      Stan Lee needs to sue Stan Lee Media so that Stan Lee can have the rights to the Stan Lee Media name again.

    5. Re:Disney never lose by Cito · · Score: 1

      Unless you're Deadmau5 :-P

    6. Re:Disney never lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You forgot Stan Lee.

    7. Re:Disney never lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's a different Stan Lee. I'm talking about Stan Lee.

    8. Re:Disney never lose by grim-one · · Score: 1

      If you fight Disney in a copyright battle you will lose.

      Unless you're Deadmau5 :-P

      That was trademark.

    9. Re:Disney never lose by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      Don't make me Stan Lee. You wouldn't like me when I'm Stan Lee.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  3. We can be certain of one thing by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

    The actual people who came up with the characters definitely don't own them.

    Thanks, pro-corporate copyright laws and contracts!

    1. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Russ1642 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The actual people who came up with the characters sold them for money.

    2. Re:We can be certain of one thing by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I pay you to create something why would you own it? If you want to own your copyrights then don't sell them.

    3. Re:We can be certain of one thing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Thanks, pro-corporate copyright laws and contracts!

      Next Tuesday. You all know what must be done to start correcting the problem. Everybody needs to put up or shut up.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >If I pay you to create something why would you own it?

      Millions of Americans who have professional wedding photos would like to know.

    5. Re:We can be certain of one thing by XanC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      THAT is a huge scam.

    6. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is don't hire a wedding photographer that won't assign you some form of copyright. I believe we at least paid for the right to make unlimited copies from a DVD of high resolution photos. I really wasn't interested in having a wedding photographer if I didn't have a right to make copies or post some pictures online. Yes, it is annoying when a photographer won't allow you to make copies without an extra fee and I have heard some pretty bad stories about this practice, but people should have a basic understanding of copyright law and what they are getting when hiring someone to do creative work.

    7. Re:We can be certain of one thing by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Really? Which candidates are going to throw out the current copyright mess and rebuild it from the ground up?

    8. Re:We can be certain of one thing by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Crucial distinction:

      They lost rights to everything they came up with in perpetuity as a standard contract of their employment. I view such heavy handed contracts quite dimly as a result of unbalanced employment negotiation.

    9. Re:We can be certain of one thing by tomhath · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's quite common today for the photographer to assign the copyright to the couple and give them all of the photographs in digital format. The days of "pay me for every print" are thankfully over.

    10. Re:We can be certain of one thing by chispito · · Score: 2

      They lost rights to everything they came up with

      see, here you're missing "while employed there"

      in perpetuity as a standard contract of their employment. I view such heavy handed contracts quite dimly as a result of unbalanced employment negotiation.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    11. Re:We can be certain of one thing by dmomo · · Score: 2

      I create programs for an employer. Should that be treated any differently than other works?

    12. Re:We can be certain of one thing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Just pick anybody that is not of the incumbent party(republican/democrat). Just make it a clean sweep, and that will wake everybody up for the next round. Vote for business as usual, and that is what you will get, and I will mock your complaints again.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Nice assertion. Explain in detail how, when you're being paid to create something for someone else, you should retain the rights to it *and* the compensation you received.

    14. Re:We can be certain of one thing by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By that logic, the burger flipper at McDonald's should be able to pocket all the money McDonald's brings in.

      Don't ignore the fact that the employee's contribution is only a small component to the success of the business. Just because someone comes up with cool superhero drawings doesn't mean he alone also brings those to market, negotiates comic book, movie, TV, and other licensing deals, creates the content and publishes that content, or any of the hundreds of other jobs that go into the production including managing payroll, paying bills, etc.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    15. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      That was phrased that way because /.'s comment system showed your comment under another and it caused a misinterpretation of what you wrote.

    16. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >but people should have a basic understanding of copyright law and what they are getting when hiring someone to do creative work.

      And I suppose those buying gas should have a basic understanding of fluid dynamics? :)

      Copyright law is probably more complicated a subject, to be honest. I think expecting a couple being married to understand the finer points of it is unrealistic and unnecessary.

    17. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      easy: when you have conferred a non-exclusive right to your employer and retain a non-exclusive right to the same work.

    18. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the term is Work for Hire , and I would definitely not hire a photographer who did not agree with that.

    19. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Apples and oranges, logically.

      By that logic, the burger flipper at McDonald's should be able to pocket all the money McDonald's brings in.

      Only if the burger flipper in question was also the person who invented Big Macs or Chicken McNuggets.

    20. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why dew yew hate our freedoms?

    21. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you build your employer a piece of software that ends up making hundreds of millions of dollars wouldn't you feel entitled to some of that wealth?

    22. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you build your employer a piece of software that ends up making hundreds of millions of dollars wouldn't you feel entitled to some of that wealth?

      No. You utilized their assets to build said software, charged them money, and agreed to it. Deal with it. Just because you lacked the vision to see that software making piles of cash, don't blame others because they have bigger vision then you do.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    23. Re:We can be certain of one thing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The photographers lost before digital. Disposable cameras for everyone was cheaper than a professional photographers, and because you ended up with so many photos to choose from, the results were generally similar, if not better, so long as you were looking for an album filler, not a 10' poster of the happy couple.

      But disposable cameras only came in just before digital. The cousin with a digital SLR was good enough for multiple weddings I was the photographer for. Digital media was so cheap, you'd shoot thousands of shots, and hopefully have some that were pro-quality in there. I never had any complaints.

    24. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a photographer I can tell you that many wedding photographers will sell you the rights to the images they take. It will just be much more expensive than you might expect assuming they are any good. Generally people will find it cheaper to just pay for the prints they want.

    25. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Not really, see "unbalanced employment negotiation"

    26. Re:We can be certain of one thing by quantaman · · Score: 1

      If you build your employer a piece of software that ends up making hundreds of millions of dollars wouldn't you feel entitled to some of that wealth?

      Who really earned the hundreds of millions? Was it the guy who wrote the software, the manager who thought up and approved the project, the marketer who figured out how to sell it, the salesman who found the big customers? There's a lot of people who had a critical contribution and even with something as singular as an comic book there's a lot more cooks than you realize.

      I think exceptional employees do tend to get shortchanged on the value of their contributions. But the upside is that even if the project bombs completely you still get a paycheck.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    27. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, or as some other places, they may add periods of time or other qualifications under the assumption that the creation is based on work they were doing while employed there.

    28. Re:We can be certain of one thing by nahpets77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In many cases the employees get a share of the wealth through stock options, RUS, stock purchase plans etc. If you want the whole pie then you should start your own company and work for yourself.

    29. Re:We can be certain of one thing by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      If you build your employer a piece of software that ends up making hundreds of millions of dollars wouldn't you feel entitled to some of that wealth?

      That will teach you for not negotiating up front. That's the problem with feeling entitled, nobody else really gives a shit.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    30. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I suppose those buying gas should have a basic understanding of fluid dynamics? :)

      Depends. Do I need to sign a contract that makes certain stipulations about the gas that is being pumped?

      This isn't really about copyright law, it's about signing a contract without fully understanding what that contract says.

    31. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several races in MA have folks from the Pirate Party running, I suspect you can trust them to work on copyright issues.

      I honestly have no idea where they stand on anything else... but they do have a clear stand on IP issues!

    32. Re: We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I rent my house, should the architect get paid for it?

    33. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Just pick anybody that is not of the incumbent party(republican/democrat). Just make it a clean sweep, and that will wake everybody up for the next round. Vote for business as usual, and that is what you will get, and I will mock your complaints again.

      Two problems with this:

      1) Republicans and Democrats expect the other party to take over from time to time. Vote all of Party #1 out and they'll just wait their turn for Party #2 to be thrown out. What they really don't want is for some third party to muck up the little duopoly they've secured for themselves.

      2) The party in power will often redraw the district lines to help keep their party in power. To overcome this, you would need many, many voters banding together. How likely are you to get tens of millions of Americans to go along with your "Vote against the incumbent even if the other Major Party candidate is against everything you are for" plan? Very unlikely, I'd wager. It's more likely that you and a small group will do this and not get noticed at all as the rest of the voters cast their votes based on policy preferences or party alliance.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    34. Re:We can be certain of one thing by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      And I suppose those buying gas should have a basic understanding of fluid dynamics? :)

      Yes. By basic understanding that it means the nozzle end goes in the car-hole or you will get fuel all over your trousers.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    35. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The marketer who figured out how to sell it as John Sculley and Steve Jobs proved.

    36. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

      McDonalds has plenty of chefs that create their menu items. If you invent the McHaggis you don't get paid for every single McHaggis sold. You probably get your salary and that's it. Any chef could have created that same McHaggis but it takes an entire industry of people to market it, source the ingredients, manage the company, train the minimum wagers how to nuke it in a microwave, etc. So NO, the inventor of the Big Mac shouldn't be paid simply because they 'invented' a damn hamburger.

    37. Re:We can be certain of one thing by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      That was an analogy and was not intended to be identical in every way. The similarity is in the relationship between employee and employer, and the significance of what someone might consider the "main work" when in fact it is not.

      Why do I have to explain this?

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    38. Re:We can be certain of one thing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you all have to unite and work things out on your own. And with your district being redrawn, you have to get out and meet a bunch of new people. The telephone doesn't respect congressional districts. And stop voting for major parties, that's the problem right there, you all ignore other people on the ballot that were put there exactly to give the majors the bums rush. Take a chance with them. Your votes makes them just as electable as any of the big boys. And it has the side benefit of devaluing the campaign dollar to zero.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    39. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      People don't want 'prints', unless you consider the odd set of fifty year olds getting married these days. People want to post images online. They want to create their own derivative works - like turning some into B&W.

    40. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Who really earned the hundreds of millions? Was it the guy who wrote the software, the manager who thought up and approved the project, the marketer who figured out how to sell it, the salesman who found the big customers? There's a lot of people who had a critical contribution and even with something as singular as an comic book there's a lot more cooks than you realize.

      This is Slashdot. Slashdotters will often only cherish the people doing the actual end content creation and dismiss all those other people as leeches or unimportant middle-men because their business model is obsolete and Internet and etcetc.

    41. Re:We can be certain of one thing by camperdave · · Score: 2

      I ran cable for internet connections. Where's my cut of the action?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    42. Re:We can be certain of one thing by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      That was an analogy and was not intended to be identical in every way. The similarity is in the relationship between employee and employer, and the significance of what someone might consider the "main work" when in fact it is not.

      Why do I have to explain this?

      Because in the case of creator's rights that your analogy is aluding to, it's the relationship of the creator and employer that are the most relevant to the discussion.
      It's the creator, or their estates, who often claim control of the rights and demand compensation retroactively for a share of the total profits. That hardly if ever happens with the dozens of people who created new material using the characters after the creator has moved on.

      So the players in a relevant analogy are:

      The creator who had the original idea for a character = The inventor of the recipe for the burger, nuggets, joyful meal etc.
      The people who do the "main work" for decades after the creator stops working on the character (and usually generate more total revenue than the creator ever did alone). Writers, artists, colorists, inkers, letterers, editors = burger flippers, fry cooks, managers, etc.
      The employer = The employer.

      That last one was spot on, I'll say.

    43. Re: We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you entered in to a contract with the architect that says "I get x% if you rent his house" then yes.

    44. Re:We can be certain of one thing by meerling · · Score: 1

      So do many judges which is why so many artists over the years have been able to fight for the rights to their creations and won.

    45. Re:We can be certain of one thing by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Digital media was so cheap, you'd shoot thousands of shots, and hopefully have some that were pro-quality in there. I never had any complaints.

      You must inherently be pretty good. From my experience trying to find a photog for events, i.e. engineers week banquets, is really hard. So far we've been lucky, mostly be accident (someone is willing to jump in at last minute). Either photog will charge lots of $$$ making it difficult for us non-profits, or they will insist it be locked down on a website, or a horrible watermark. I got into a big argument with one guy who does beautiful photos but so possessive of them, "you don't understand, people may steal your photo and make a lot of money from it! (uh, pictures of engineers getting awards will never be valuable like a rock star that has a wardrobe malfunction). If I do find someone, it's either they get stuck in traffic or have a family emergency. I think my next move is ask some college students that want to participate and show off their skills.

      Enough of that bitching. Getting back to Stan Lee, Disney bought Marvel?!?! And also what strikes me is all these characters are more than 50 years old, they keep retreading same themes like cowboy and pirate characters. They may be interesting and timeless like Superman, I guess there have been new ideas but haven't taken hold. Though I kind of miss the old school Scarlet Witch with the tight outfit like a Playboy Bunny costume, long gloves, go-go boots, big hair, etc.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    46. Re:We can be certain of one thing by jsepeta · · Score: 2

      this NEVER happens in the comic industry. unless your name is Todd McFarlane

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    47. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some cases. FTFY.

      When I worked at Abbott Laboratories, I saw a few offices where the occupant had patented something while working for Abbott. The certificates they had on the wall were the framed patent grant document from the USPTO, along with the $1 bill that Abbott gave the employee for the consideration in exchange for the transferring of the patent rights to Abbott Laboratories...

      At least the transaction and transfer of rights was acknowledged at Abbott.

    48. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crucial distinction:

      They lost rights to everything they came up with in perpetuity as a standard contract of their employment. I view such heavy handed contracts quite dimly as a result of unbalanced employment negotiation.

      So don't take a salary. Work a night job and publish your own comics by day and keep all your money. Or take a salary and assign over your rights.

      This is a risk benefit analysis, plain and simple. You either choose to risk receiving no pay and income to create an artistic expression that may or may not generate financial wealth, or you assign away your risk/reward scenario to a company in return for the knowledge of financial security during the term of your employment. There's no reason to assume a character you make will be good, that's a risk you take or assign away to a company.

    49. Re:We can be certain of one thing by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      People don't want 'prints', unless you consider the odd set of fifty year olds getting married these days. People want to post images online. They want to create their own derivative works - like turning some into B&W.

      Then expect to pay for a professional for his time and equipment for what is probably a three days worth of contract work. Besides just showing up at the beginning and leaving at the end after taking all those photos, there is usually quite a lot of post production work that goes into those wedding photos to make them look as good as the ones that were on their website or in their portfolio that caused you to want to hire them. They really want that because if nothing else, if they let you have a bunch of unfinished photos or ruin it by turning it into a B&W and tell everybody they took them, their business is what is being harmed, not your wedding. No matter what, a professional photographer has to make his money to stay in business, and where they used to charge for prints, now it's becoming a service industry and people will have to pay for time and like about any time a person wants to hire a professional to do something, it's going to cost more money than they were expecting.

      The other option is to have your friend or cousin take the photos or otherwise gather up all the photos everybody there takes. It might turn out fine, or it might not, same as if you had a friend come over and build your computer or code your program for free.

    50. Re:We can be certain of one thing by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If you make your employer a big pile of money, he's a fool if he doesn't see that you're likely to continue doing things that will make him more piles of money. If he is a fool, you should look for a better employer, armed with the proof that you're worth lots of money.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    51. Re:We can be certain of one thing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      From my experience trying to find a photog for events, i.e. engineers week banquets, is really hard. So far we've been lucky, mostly be accident (someone is willing to jump in at last minute). Either photog will charge lots of $$$ making it difficult for us non-profits, or they will insist it be locked down on a website, or a horrible watermark. I got into a big argument with one guy who does beautiful photos but so possessive of them, "you don't understand, people may steal your photo and make a lot of money from it! (uh, pictures of engineers getting awards will never be valuable like a rock star that has a wardrobe malfunction). If I do find someone, it's either they get stuck in traffic or have a family emergency. I think my next move is ask some college students that want to participate and show off their skills.

      Ask some of the engineers to do it. It's really not hard to do it. And it's cheaper to buy a camera for an event (About $1000 for a "good enough" prosumer camera) than it is to hire someone for that event. The pros have $10,000 of lighting equipment, and have to charge to earn that back. I bought the $1000 camera for tourist reasons. And it's served me well for about 10 years. Bought the Rebel XT long ago.

    52. Re:We can be certain of one thing by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I need the person, not the camera (got lots of those). I dunno, maybe it's me. Whenever I ask someone they either don't have the time or don't want to be responsible (too scared of getting sued).

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    53. Re:We can be certain of one thing by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      You idealists are SOOOOOOOO cute with your ridiculous, not-working-in-the-real-world talk.

    54. Re:We can be certain of one thing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Millions of Americans bought one thing but wanted another. I assume they picked a photographer on a whim and weren't willing to shop around?

    55. Re:We can be certain of one thing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They are afraid they will suck at it, so they make up stories to get out of it. That's what it usually comes down to. But it's not that hard. Really. It was "made hard" by professionals who want to convince everyone that it's hard.

    56. Re:We can be certain of one thing by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly why they do not get 100% of the profit or even a moderate percentage of that. A more apt analogy is the burger flipper being legally forced to never flip burgers again, in quite the same way, for perpetuity after his employment ends.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    57. Re:We can be certain of one thing by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      I was NOT alluding to creator's rights. I was alluding to exactly what I said before, the employee/employer relationship and significance of work. Stop trying to make my analogy something it isn't.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    58. Re:We can be certain of one thing by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      That isn't the same thing at all. It might be if the artist is contractually/legally restrained from ever drawing new characters, but obviously that is not the case.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    59. Re:We can be certain of one thing by ScepticOne · · Score: 2

      Yep, we can definitely be certain of one thing. We just don't know what that one thing actually is...

    60. Re:We can be certain of one thing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Whatever, you only look like idiots with your complaints while voting for these people. I have no expectations, I'm only saying there is an opportunity to start making the changes you all are bitching for. So, if you keep on voting for big money, then you know where you can file those complaints.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    61. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can be compensated in other ways, like surfing Slashdot at work.

    62. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did what now?

      Looks like I'll be sellin my super hero: Skeeter the Trouser Snake Beater

      Should we start the bidding at $500,000 or skip it to $5 mil?

    63. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess it all depends on the company (and your dept. manager).

      I was at Sun Microsystems for many years, in one of their sales offices (not R&D or HQ), but one time I overheard one of the managers of a product management team say how he made sure his people's names were in every patent application they filed so they would all benefit, ending with the phrase "I take care of my guys". Before then I hadn't really given much thought to the matter, but I guess it was nice to have this kind of policy.

      Years later I met a guy that had worked for Nokia and, even after his employment there ended, the company paid him a few thousand euros for a couple of patents he had contributed to while working for them.

      I realize not all companies do this, and some may do the exact opposite and screw over employees. In some cases it's the person (artist, engineer or whatever) that may end up messing up either out of ignorance or naivete....which is why Michael Jackson ended up owning the rights to many of the Beatles' earlier works (and as Paul McCartney mentioned on the Graham Norton show (skip to 1:30 if you want), he told him with a teeheehee)

    64. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add &t=1m30s to the end of the url.

      All the cool kids are doing it, nigger.

    65. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most certainly, but it's successful enough that even the gays and lesbians want to get married.

    66. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a character for use in a gay porno.

      $5m might be a sound starting point.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    67. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Actually, this year I'm planning on voting for a third party candidate. I don't like my state's mayoral candidate (Democrat) who is up for re-election. The Republican has one position I agree with but a bunch of others I don't agree with. I've found that I agree with just about every position the Green candidate holds, though. I don't have any illusions about the Green candidate winning. Our Democratic incumbent is too entrenched. He will win. However, if I and enough people vote for other candidates (especially third party candidates), maybe the winning mayoral candidate will take heed and adjust his positions accordingly. (If there's one thing politicians are known for, it's being able to bend whichever way the political winds blow.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    68. Re:We can be certain of one thing by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      More like, a burger flipper cannot make Big Macs(Wolverine) for McDonalds(Marvel), leave that employment, then legally be able to start working for Burger King(DC) making the same Big Macs, or start up his own Burger Joint offering the same Big Macs; but he can make Big Macs for the occasional private barbecue. There's nothing that can stop him from generally flipping burgers, as your statement indicates.

    69. Re:We can be certain of one thing by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Yup. Every vote counts. Every vote counts just as much as the rest of the 80k - 130k votes in any given federal level election. The more people who vote the less power each vote gets, and despite your idealist views the biggest and most powerful groups fighting each other are members of two specific parties. I can and have told people until I'm blue in the face(figuratively) about independent candidates and their policies and tried to convince them to vote the 3rd party. I'm a classical liberalist surrounded by Party Republicans that won't believe that a vote for their party leadership is no different from a vote for a Democratic leader.

      Personally, I don't vote big money, deliberately (How many of these Politicians, even the independent ones, are poor without financial backing anyway?). Never have. I try to convince others to vote my way. Never works. Never makes a difference. So why vote at all? So I can repeat the "I told you so" line when shit goes as expected. And when you come into any forum and tell people about "opportunit[ies] to start making the changes [we're] all bitching for" there's only two types of people you're preaching to: The deaf or the choir. The political temperature I've seen on /. leans more towards the choir, but there's more than enough deaf here as well; and we are by no means a reflective sample of the world at large that tends to be mostly deaf. Good luck changing minds that willfully will not change.

    70. Re:We can be certain of one thing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Just don't go around blaming the "system". That crap makes me want to puke. The voters have to get their shit together for anything to happen at all. It cannot be more obvious.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    71. Re:We can be certain of one thing by torkus · · Score: 1

      Is it though?

      It's not like hiring them guarantees they will create the next superman. Plenty are paid "fair" wages to create comics ... and then there's the times where something new and special is created, catches on, and becomes the Next Big Thing. You can't exactly just make it happen.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    72. Re:We can be certain of one thing by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Ever watch the Matrix? The Voters are part of the "system" and will fight tooth and nail to avoid the pain of being yanked out of it. And any one of them could rat you out to an agent of the "system" for causing too much fuss.

    73. Re:We can be certain of one thing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Screw it then! I don't give a shit... I'm gettin' another beer.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    74. Re: We can be certain of one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then your analogy sucked and was irrelevant to the topic. Congrats?

    75. Re:We can be certain of one thing by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It's about royalties, not guarantees.

      Plenty are paid "fair" wages to create comics

      It's not a "fair" system when the person responsible for the creation of a product gets .00000001% of the profit raked in by the producer of the product. Corporations are free to hold onto "intellectual property" for what is, for all practical purposes, eternity. The least they can do is give the working stiffs a percentage of the profits in the process.

  4. Walter Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would say what?

  5. The clear owners are obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

  6. Background material: by bmajik · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    Short Version: Stan Lee has had nothing to do with SLM for over a decade - since his former friend and co-founder fled to South America to avoid federal securities fraud prosecution.

    SLM is currently a few leeches who have nothing to do with the comics industry are trying to sink their claws into the profits of the creative class.

    I understand that creative people need money to work, and the entities that front that money are due a return on their investment.

    That's not what's going on here.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:Background material: by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      So, what I'm hearing is that SLM is the comic IP equivalent of a patent troll?

      If true, I wonder how Lee himself came to terms with his name being directly associated with such an odious business model?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Background material: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sold his interests.

    3. Re:Background material: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      So this co-founder "fled to South America to avoid" ... "prosecution" (in the US courts), and is now using the US courts to sue for money?
      The US courts should say, "this case ain't goin' anywhere until the founder signs the dotted line, personally."

      If this violates the person's American (USA) rights... so be it. Who cares? This person is hiding out in South America, and therefore should not have the right to be using the resources of the American government('s court system) in an effort to extract money from an American company.

      Our government is stupid beyond all comparison if we, as a nation, allow our money to flow to South America in this case.
      (Granted, that was a kind of pointless statement, because our government is stupid beyond all comparison either way...)

    4. Re:Background material: by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      He probably doesn't like it, but he was one of the founders for the company so he was obviously okay with it at the time. He probably could have changed the name, etc. before he sold his interests in it if he wanted to avoid the potential problems.

    5. Re:Background material: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has been in the publishing industry since the forties. He's good with everything except Will Wheaton knocking on his door in the middle of the night.

    6. Re:Background material: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think Stan Lee would have forced them to change the name since he had nothing to do with it any more.

    7. Re:Background material: by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      He has been in the publishing industry since the forties. He's good with everything except Will Wheaton knocking on his door in the middle of the night.

      I thought that was Jim Parsons.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    8. Re:Background material: by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that was part of the deal -- he gets x dollars, for, among other things, letting them continue to use the name.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:Background material: by neoritter · · Score: 1

      I understand your point here, but if he wasn't actually found guilty of whatever they're trying to prosecute him with, he's still innocent until proven guilty. To do what you suggest, would allow the government to prevent a plaintiff from seeking legal recourse because they're awaiting prosecution of an unrelated issue.

    10. Re: Background material: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure they put him on secret list and try him in secret court with a jury of secret peers who will review the secret evidence. They will produce a secret verdict and have the Israelites kill him. In secret, of course.

    11. Re:Background material: by tazan · · Score: 4, Informative

      If I read the wiki correctly. The company went bankrupt, new owners took over and sued Marvel for a piece of the pie. Kind of like a lottery ticket: not much chance of winning, but the payoff is huge. They lost. Second group did the same thing, The third group which apparently is some kind of hedge fund did the same thing. This is their appeal. So not really related to Stan Lee or anyone originally at Stan Lee Media.

    12. Re:Background material: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it would prevent them from seeking legal recourse while fleeing prosecution for an unrelated issue.

    13. Re:Background material: by bmajik · · Score: 1

      The person in question was ultimately extradited to the US and convicted. The point was that the company turned shady very quickly.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    14. Re:Background material: by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      I understand your point here, but if he wasn't actually found guilty of whatever they're trying to prosecute him with, he's still innocent until proven guilty. To do what you suggest, would allow the government to prevent a plaintiff from seeking legal recourse because they're awaiting prosecution of an unrelated issue.

      Isn't resisting arrest a crime? Isn't ignoring a subpoena a crime? He may (or may not) be guilty of the original crime, but he's definitely guilty of subsequent ones.

    15. Re:Background material: by neoritter · · Score: 1

      It is potentially legal to resist arrest. See Bad Elk v. US - holds an individual has the right to use force to resist an unlawful arrest and was entitled to a jury instruction to that effect."

    16. Re:Background material: by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      This is why it's risky to attach your name to the company's name. Sure, it could secure you a legacy in history, but it can also lead to situations where others will take the company name and try to use as a tentpole of credibility for their schemes. "Surely Captain Kirk Enterprises, LLC wouldn't lead me astray!"

  7. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He has NO power over the DARK side!

    1. Re:Yes by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Has He tried bleaching it?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    2. Re:Yes by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yes. The blood still won't come out.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  8. what a showboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does Stan Lee still own the rights to the character "Stan Lee" (tm)?

    1. Re:what a showboat by Cito · · Score: 1

      What is really sad if the inventor of Wolverine or any of the original characters were to draw and post them online to sell, perhaps in retirement for extra cash they'd be sued into bankruptcy.

      Its sad when something you invented on paper you are never allowed to do it again. And if after your death your family finds old artwork of characters Disney can have the place raided and all artwork drawn during his original employment confiscated.

    2. Re: what a showboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Untrue. Many artists like John Byrne sell commissions and DisneyMarvel overlook it.

    3. Re:what a showboat by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      What is really sad if the inventor of Wolverine or any of the original characters were to draw and post them online to sell, perhaps in retirement for extra cash they'd be sued into bankruptcy.

      Totally false. I'm not sure there's a single pro who won't take commissions. Many publish and sell sketchbooks full of drawings of characters owned by companies; nothing happens. If they were to try to sell actually comics stories featuring the companies' characters, that would probably get noticed very quickly, but just drawing characters has never been considered a big deal.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    4. Re:what a showboat by Smonson78 · · Score: 1

      No, Rebellion (owner of the Judge Dredd universe where the Stan Lee character appears) does. I hope you were actually being serious but I'm not going to stake my life upon it.

    5. Re:what a showboat by Hodr · · Score: 2

      I was part of the group that stood in line for a week for the original X-Men opening in Hollywood, CA (a hold-over from the popularity of the Star Wars lines).

      One day this homeless looking guy (one of many, possibly hundreds, that we saw during the week) came by with a wolverine hat on and told us that he had invented the character. We humored him, but none of us took him seriously. A couple days later Bryan Singer stops by to say high, sees this guy in the background, and pulls him to the front of the line to tell us that the guy invented Wolverine. Oops.

      That whole experience was frought with cringe though. Before I had been introduced to Bryan, he knocked my dreamcast off of the TV (ok, we weren't exactly roughing it) and I yelled at him for a solid 2-3 minutes. I also spent some time arguing with an old man about Star Trek, who turned out to be Harlan Ellison. To be fair, he didn't tell me who he was (I would have recognized the name, though I didn't know what he looked like).

    6. Re:what a showboat by torkus · · Score: 1

      So...it's OK to disrespect and yell at people until you know who they are? (and perhaps only if they've done something you find worthwhile) I mean ... it's off-topic but that's still more than a little messed up.

      It's sad though that the creators of these things don't get something more out of it, but if you do 'works for hire' and assign copyright in return for a salary that's how it goes. If you failed to negotiate good contract terms you dun goofed. Plus how many comic characters do people get paid to make that /don't/ do anything special? We're talking about the exception, not the rule here. COnsider the gazillion indie bands that make music no one ever hears until a record company waves it's magic wand, picks one, and ding ding ding...played twice an hour on every radio station and suddenly they're #1.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    7. Re:what a showboat by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      so you're an over-reactionary dick with issues of self entitlement. got it.

    8. Re:what a showboat by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      And if after your death your family finds old artwork of characters Disney can have the place raided and all artwork drawn during his original employment confiscated.

      If those were the terms of the contract of employment, then yes. Are you saying that humans 40 or 50 years ago were so stupid that they couldn't read the contracts written by humans of the same era. Before they signed them.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  9. And people who write software by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't usually own the copyright to the code, when they are doing it for another company.
    I get you aren't happy with the balance of power in this but remember the people who created those characters actually did give up their rights to them for payment. If you want to change the laws to give them greater protection consider you may actually be taking away their ability to sell their work and make a living.

    1. Re:And people who write software by neoritter · · Score: 1

      It seems obvious to me that the person who came up with the idea and directed it's creation is the copyright holder. Does Keanu Reeves own the copyright for Edward Scissorhands? No. Even though he used his creative talent to actually create the character for its audience. Likewise, if I hire someone to take wedding photos, then the photo copyrights are mine, as I commissioned the person to take them.

    2. Re:And people who write software by horm · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? Keanu Reeves? You and I saw a very different movie.

    3. Re:And people who write software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keanu Reeves? Did you mean Johnny Depp?

    4. Re:And people who write software by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

      Does Keanu Reeves own the copyright for Edward Scissorhands? No.

      Certainly not, but that's mostly because Keanu Reeves had nothing to do with that movie.

      Johnny Depp, on the other hand, almost certainly still gets royalties for his performance.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:And people who write software by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Bah, I was thinking Matrix at first and then the Tim Burton movie popped in my head. Sorry, Johnny Depp.

    6. Re:And people who write software by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Informative

      It seems obvious to me that the person who came up with the idea and directed it's creation is the copyright holder.

      It's really a matter of directing its creation. Mere ideas aren't copyrightable, and merely coming up with one doesn't matter. If you use someone else's idea but are the only creative participant, they won't get rights in tor work.

      And if you direct creation, you don't have to be the person who literally brings it about, either. But this is more than just paying someone a commission, or giving them the basic idea. It means that the other active participant isn't contributing anything creative.

      So for example, if you tell a photographer that you want a photo of some subject, the photographer will end up being the author. If you tell him exactly what camera settings to use, what lighting, choose the subject, pose the subject, etc., then you're engaging in authorship.

      . Likewise, if I hire someone to take wedding photos, then the photo copyrights are mine, as I commissioned the person to take them.

      No, they're not. Being the author means having sole artistic control. Being a joint author would involve two parties having artistic control, and an intent to produce a joint work. And a work for hire, in which authorship is attributed to an employer requires more than merely commissioning a work. It requires actual employment, with all the relevant indicia (tax forms, insurance, providing the tools and work area, etc.) or in a handful of cases, contractual language.

      You might be interested in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony and Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid.

      Does Keanu Reeves own the copyright for Edward Scissorhands? No.

      I think you mean Johnny Depp.

      --
      -- 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.
    7. Re:And people who write software by neoritter · · Score: 3

      Apologies, wires were crossed when I picked Keanu Reeves and Edward Scissorhands.

      He'd get royalties of the movie sales, etc. But, that's whatever is specified in his contract. It's not because he owns the copyright to Edward Scissorhands as depicted in the movie. If the studios decided to make a sequel to the movie, then they could even though Johnny Depp doesn't want to do it. They could hire some other schmuck to play the part.

    8. Re:And people who write software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does Keanu Reeves own the copyright for Edward Scissorhands?

      "Whoa."

    9. Re:And people who write software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's not forget that characters generated by these artists would most likely never have gotten as popular as they have if the comic book series and characters weren't marketed by their employers. There are tons of very talented artists out there today and a lot of them create comic book characters and put their art/work out there for all to see on the internet. Hardly any of them end up with a successful comic book series by self publishing.

    10. Re:And people who write software by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      The copyright for a movie character belongs to the production team that created that character, rather than an actor who simply portrayed them in one or more films. Actors own the right to their own image, but when they play a character they are portraying an image that the production company owns - presumably this is covered in their contracts. They can't simply walk down to the mall and hold out a hat dressed as Captain Jack, even if they played that role once.

      It takes quite a few people to create the image of a lead character, and each has to assign their rights over that image to the production company as a standard part of their contract. If they don't, it becomes impossible for the company to conduct business using the image.

      So while it takes a village to make a movie character (original concept, script writer, concept artist, wardrobe, make-up, director, art director, etc), a comic character is often created by just one party - the artist, and possibly a separate writer. They make the most sizeable contribution towards having that character available to the wider public...but...they too need to hand over those rights in order for the whole chain of production to run through.

      Sure, they deserve a better deal that most of them get, but so most creative people. Then again, if your goal is to make money, you should have gone into management. It's indoors work with no heavy lifting, and you get to reap the rewards of everyone else's hard labour ^^

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    11. Re:And people who write software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photography is pretty specific. The copyright initially belongs to the person who took the picture. Doesn't matter if he owns or doesn't own the camera, film, etc. Just look at the deal with Ellen Degeneres' group photo from the Emmy Awards earlier this year. In this case, the person who took the picture was free to post it online (after Ellen sent it to him, before either knew...), even though the picture was taken on Ellen's phone, and she was contractually obligated to turn over pictures *she* took (not just the pictures on her phone) to the Emmys. Then, you had the Emmy Awards threatening this and that, until someone said, "you have no case, so maybe you should stop before you go all full Barbara Streisand".

    12. Re:And people who write software by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      The copyright for a movie character belongs to the production team that created that character, rather than an actor who simply portrayed them in one or more films. Actors own the right to their own image, but when they play a character they are portraying an image that the production company owns - presumably this is covered in their contracts. They can't simply walk down to the mall and hold out a hat dressed as Captain Jack, even if they played that role once.

      Whatever you're describing, it has nothing to do with copyright.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    13. Re:And people who write software by Talderas · · Score: 1

      "I know ice sculpting and hedge art."

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  10. Bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why isn't everybody free to make as much money from his own stories around those characters as he wishes, as long as he is not stealing the stories?

  11. Oh course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave it to d-bags who aren't even affiliated with the original creator, to pull a money grabbing scheme.

  12. But by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    without the rights to the characters, Marvel Comics is worthless....

    Another clarion call for the end of copyright as we know it and complete and total overhaul of the system

  13. Wedding Photography by jsrjsr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My wife and I own the copyright to our wedding photos taken over 25 years ago and have the negatives. Nearly all of the photographers we talked to at the time were still in the old model where they owned the copyright -- especially the older ones. The younger ones were beginning to switch to the new model where the customer owns the copyright.

    There are still numerous photographers that stick to the old model because they think it makes them more money. Kind of an interesting belief given the number of people who never have more prints made. Seems to me that you'd make more money just by charging extra for the negatives or digital files.

  14. Ah, the irony... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    The copyright on Mickey Mouse should have run out a thousand years ago, but Disney's tame Congressmen just keep letting them renew and renew and renew.

    The idea that they're now trying to muscle their way in on other cartoon characters is disgusting.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Ah, the irony... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they have. 14 years + one 14 year renewal; and even that was too long.

    2. Re:Ah, the irony... by kesuki · · Score: 2

      "Actually, they have. 14 years + one 14 year renewal; and even that was too long."

      i think you should have checked the facts. 'The Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.'
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
      this means that in 2019 some 1923 copyrighted materials will hit the public domain. if they aren't extended before then.

    3. Re:Ah, the irony... by meerling · · Score: 1

      Not true.

      I suspect the case we are talking about is a work published 1923 through 1963 with a copyright notice and the copyright was renewed1923 through 1963.
      That means it's 95 years after publication date.

      Try this link for the full info:
      https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

  15. It's like comparing apples and oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apples and oranges, logically.

    Both are of the Rosids clade. Both are fruit. Both are cultivated by humans.

  16. Re:This should be public domain by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

    I'd agree with you, but you just had to make it about fuckin' Jews, didn't you.

  17. Re:Background material:Jim Parsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, it was the character Sheldon Cooper.

    -Mr. Pedantic

  18. Re:Background material:Jim Parsons by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    In fact, it was the character Sheldon Cooper.

    -Mr. Pedantic

    Ok fair enough. Pedantry has its place. The previous reference was of course to the character Wil Wheaton from the same show, played coincidentally by an actor named Wil Wheaton.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  19. Re:This should be public domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd agree with you, but you just had to make it about fuckin' Jews, didn't you.

    The man spoke the truth.

    Your problem is that you are not man enough to admit it was the truth.

  20. Re:Background material:Jim Parsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Original AC here, no it was to Will Wheaton. An entirely different person.

  21. Re:This should be public domain by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

    I was man enough for your girlfriend, AC.

  22. Re:Background material:Jim Parsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, it was the character Sheldon Cooper.

    -Mr. Pedantic

    That's Doctor Sheldon Cooper you insensitive clod.

  23. I propose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I propose that we split the characters down the middle and each company may retain exactly one half of each character. Problem solved. Now the only thing to quibble about is whether you want to split them horizontally or vertically.