|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 16, 2015 0:25:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by batlaw on Jul 16, 2015 6:45:59 GMT -5
Wow. Rather fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 16, 2015 7:47:11 GMT -5
I personally think it's a coincidence. Neither of those '50s costumes is all that close to the Ditko design and the webbing motif would occur to anybody designing a spider-themed outfit (well, anybody but Kirby, whose design featured no webbing and allegedly resembled Ant-Man's costume).
Cei-U!
But it's an interesting coincidence!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 16, 2015 8:16:00 GMT -5
Having read the article in its entirety, it seems like an awful lot of speculation. Sure any one of the ideas being purported is possible, but certainly not the likeliest of explanations. I'd say the fact that Ben Cooper was licensing an official Spider-Man costume in 1963 is pretty good evidence that even they didn't remember the earlier 1954 costume. And, even if Ditko was unconsciously inspired by the costume, so what? The only argument put forth in this article that seems worthy of exploration is the possibility that Kirby was working for Ben Cooper in the 1950s, and that this would serve as evidence that he had a hand in the design of the Spider-Man costume. It flies in the face of generally accepted fact, and I really hate that Ditko was harassed by the costume owner over this, but it might be worth exploring.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jul 16, 2015 9:12:17 GMT -5
It really was inappropriate that he contacted Ditko directly to insinuate that he copied Marvel's Spider-Man's design. The similarities that did exist can easily be explained by the fact that both were referencing spiders, so a web design is kind of a no brainer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 10:12:48 GMT -5
I find this article very interesting reading material that could have some serious legal ramifications that need to be handled with upmost caution.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 16, 2015 10:15:55 GMT -5
I sincerely doubt there would be legal consequences. The creators of the films "The Bat" and "The Man Who Laughs" never sued DC over rights to Batman and the Joker, even though Bob Kane and Jerry Robinson have outright acknowledged their visual inspiration. "Inspired by" is not generally a legally significant credit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Farrar on Jul 16, 2015 10:43:54 GMT -5
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 16, 2015 11:20:00 GMT -5
Interesting that, on the one hand, the article alleges Ben Cooper stopped production of the original Spider-Man costume and made an arrangement with Marvel to sell the licensed one because it feared legal trouble and, on the other, explains that the original Spider-Man costume was sold "until the late 1950's" (making it discontinued a minimum of three years prior to the creation of Spider-Man). He also assumes everyone living in New York HAD to remember a single discontinued kids Halloween costume, and that Steve Ditko MUST have seen the costume because he walked to Marvel's HQ to drop off his work. This guy is working so hard to find a conspiracy that he completely misses the facts. Meanwhile, he sure seems to enjoy taking up Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's time. Yeah, I'm less convinced than ever now. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 16, 2015 11:41:44 GMT -5
There are no legal ramifications whatsoever here.
There is no trademark infringement, because, assuming Ben Cooper ever had a trade-mark on "Spiderman" they failed to protect it and lost it. Ditto with any trademark logo.
As to a potential copyright claim, you can argue that the Ben Cooper costume is a pictorial or graphic work subject to copyright. However, given the time-frame that copyright would have had to have been registered and renewed at least once.
It appears that Rubie's Costume Co. may be the successor in interest to Ben Cooper following Cooper's second bankruptcy in 1991. But whether that included any intellectual property rights is an open question.
There just ain't no there, there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 16, 2015 12:21:43 GMT -5
I chortled when I read that Ditko "Had" to have seen the costume because Ben Cooper was "the king of New York".
Bachelor/artist absolutely HAS to have seen an obscure Halloween costume. Because....reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 16, 2015 12:25:52 GMT -5
There are no legal ramifications whatsoever here. There is no trademark infringement, because, assuming Ben Cooper ever had a trade-mark on "Spiderman" they failed to protect it and lost it. Ditto with any trademark logo. As to a potential copyright claim, you can argue that the Ben Cooper costume is a pictorial or graphic work subject to copyright. However, given the time-frame that copyright would have had to have been registered and renewed at least once. It appears that Rubie's Costume Co. may be the successor in interest to Ben Cooper following Cooper's second bankruptcy in 1991. But whether that included any intellectual property rights is an open question. There just ain't no there, there. What I really love about this place (apart from the outstanding quality of its posters, naturally) is that there's always someone who's competent to discuss such issues with authority and give us the straight dope. Whenever I think I'm about to go mad because of the asinine, ignorant and trite comments made on most message boards or on Facebook pages, I come back to the CCF... and regain some measure of faith in humanity. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 16, 2015 12:39:06 GMT -5
There are no legal ramifications whatsoever here. There is no trademark infringement, because, assuming Ben Cooper ever had a trade-mark on "Spiderman" they failed to protect it and lost it. Ditto with any trademark logo. As to a potential copyright claim, you can argue that the Ben Cooper costume is a pictorial or graphic work subject to copyright. However, given the time-frame that copyright would have had to have been registered and renewed at least once. It appears that Rubie's Costume Co. may be the successor in interest to Ben Cooper following Cooper's second bankruptcy in 1991. But whether that included any intellectual property rights is an open question. There just ain't no there, there. What I really love about this place (apart from the outstanding quality of its posters, naturally) is that there's always someone who's competent to discuss such issues with authority and give us the straight dope. Whenever I think I'm about to go mad because of the asinine, ignorant and trite comments made on most message boards or on Facebook pages, I come back to the CCF... and regain some measure of faith in humanity. To be fair, I'm a criminal defense lawyer. But I have looked into a lot of I.P. law as a bit of a hobby. I just really don't see a cause-of-action here even if this were an I.P. theft...which I absolutely do not think it is. I think it's a coincidence. And not one that even looks all that similar. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jul 16, 2015 13:42:45 GMT -5
The blogger here isn't even consistent. He says early on in the "article" that "Ben Cooper, Inc. was famous for licensing hundreds of characters and even the most obscure ones much quicker than their competition." But then later he suggests that there may have been a connection between Ben Cooper and Marvel because "he (Spider-Man) was virtually an unknown character who was only on his 7th issue". Since they were "famous" for licensing "obscure ones much quicker than their competition", this doesn't seem that big a leap.
On a related note, it often irritates me when a news source quotes a blogger as if that were a qualification, like a degree. Anybody can start a blog with no actual knowledge about the subject required.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 16, 2015 13:44:44 GMT -5
Anybody can start a blog with no actual knowledge about the subject required. That's my main gripe about "social media" and the importance it is given by the population at large (and even by more traditional news sources). |
|
