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."
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?
The actual people who came up with the characters definitely don't own them.
Thanks, pro-corporate copyright laws and contracts!
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.
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
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.
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.