|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 12:30:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 26, 2014 13:20:55 GMT -5
Good. Hope the family is rich beyond their wildest dreams. Should have happened 40 years ago
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 13:24:36 GMT -5
Mars - thanks for posting this ... Kirby's Family got what they deserved and furthermore this ruling was long overdue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasoomian on Sept 26, 2014 14:58:19 GMT -5
I don't like this news. I really wanted SCOTUS to make a ruling on this and thought it would be kinda neat if the kirby characters all left Marvel for Dynamite or whatever. There were important issues in this case and they need to be reseolved some way or another. Maybe it will be a songwriting case instead of comic books.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 15:01:43 GMT -5
I think that the possibility of a Supreme Court decision changing the landscape of ownership rights of IP was the incentive for Marvel/Disney to settle. Better for them to come to a financial settlement you can control and limited to this instance, than permit a case to be heard that could potentially open the door to much larger and permanent losses of revue and ownership rights across the board that would be beyond their control...
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 26, 2014 15:23:22 GMT -5
I think that the possibility of a Supreme Court decision changing the landscape of ownership rights of IP was the incentive for Marvel/Disney to settle. Better for them to come to a financial settlement you can control and limited to this instance, than permit a case to be heard that could potentially open the door to much larger and permanent losses of revue and ownership rights across the board that would be beyond their control... -M Disney/Marvel had an incredible amount to lose from an adverse decision in this case. So they cut a deal to make sure that didn't happen. Honestly, I don't think that the Kirby estate was likely to get a positive decision in this case. But the danger of one was enough to force the settlement. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 16:35:50 GMT -5
JACK KIRBY ESTATE and MARVEL Announce Settlement
by Vaneta Rogers, Newsarama Contributor
Date: 26 September 2014
Marvel and the Jack Kirby estate have reportedly reached a settlement in their long-time legal dispute over the rights to the characters and concepts the late Jack Kirby created and co-created for the publisher.
A just-released joint announcement reportedly reads:
“Marvel and the family of Jack Kirby have amicably resolved their legal disputes, and are looking forward to advancing their shared goal of honoring Mr. Kirby’s significant role in Marvel’s history.”
At issue in the legal action was whether Kirby held copyright on the characters and concepts he authored as an independent contractor. At the time that Jack Kirby helped create so many of Marvel's most prominent characters, he was not actually employed by the company, even though his frequent partner Stan Lee was.
The Kirby family's legal battles against Marvel date back to 2009, when the Kirby heirs issued termination notices to Sony, Disney, and others who were making films based on Kirby characters like Captain America, The Fantastic Four and Iron Man. After attempts by Marvel to reach an agreement with the Kirby family failed, the company sued to invalidate those notices.
When lower courts repeatedly ruled against the Kirbys, they asked the Supreme Court earlier this year to decide whether a court can constitutionally take copyrights authored by Kirby as an independent contractor and hand them to Marvel by re-designating them "works for hire." Was Marvel an "employer" if Kirby wasn't actually an "employee?" Was their payment for that work the same as purchasing the rights to those properties?
A preliminary conference by the nine Justices of the Supreme Court was scheduled for September 29, when they were expected to consider whether they would actually hear the case. By settling the case out of court before it can even get to that point, Marvel/Disney avoids the possible Supreme Court consideration of the "work for hire" questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Sept 26, 2014 18:45:02 GMT -5
I think that the possibility of a Supreme Court decision changing the landscape of ownership rights of IP was the incentive for Marvel/Disney to settle. Better for them to come to a financial settlement you can control and limited to this instance, than permit a case to be heard that could potentially open the door to much larger and permanent losses of revue and ownership rights across the board that would be beyond their control... -M Disney/Marvel had an incredible amount to lose from an adverse decision in this case. So they cut a deal to make sure that didn't happen. Honestly, I don't think that the Kirby estate was likely to get a positive decision in this case. But the danger of one was enough to force the settlement. Can't agree more, but am glad the Kirby's kept pushing and finally got something. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 27, 2014 9:09:08 GMT -5
I'm glad to be part of a community that get's it in the Kirby vs Marvel debate. It's impossible to get some people to accept the concept that justice and the law often are mutually exclusive. It saddens and infuriates me that some fans are so selfish that all they care about is their monthly fix and really don't give a damn about the creators who are the only real reason we care about comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghastly55 on Sept 28, 2014 10:59:58 GMT -5
Damn. I was really hoping we'd get to hear Scalia and Thomas weigh in on the artistic merits of The Incredible Hulk ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2014 11:28:05 GMT -5
By which you mean, I suspect, that you were hoping we'd get to hear Scalia weigh in on the artistic merits of the Incredible Hulk while the otherwise mute Thomas continued to act as his Ed McMahon, complete with the occasional "Hey-ooooo!!!" & "You are correct, sir!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 28, 2014 11:34:00 GMT -5
Thomas missed the opportunity of mailing a big envelope to the Kirby family titled-Supreme Court Sweepstakes. You May Be The Grand Prize Winner
|
|
|
|
Post by ghastly55 on Sept 28, 2014 11:39:15 GMT -5
By which you mean, I suspect, that you were hoping we'd get to hear Scalia weigh in on the artistic merits of the Incredible Hulk while the otherwise mute Thomas continued to act as his Ed McMahon, complete with the occasional " Hey-ooooo!!!" & " You are correct, sir!" Pre-zackly. But, that's politics. Don't wanna start no argument. Been there, done that, bought the "I'm with stupid" T-shirt. ... |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 28, 2014 11:52:05 GMT -5
Of all the comic creators still alive, Steve Ditko's case is the most egregious example of corporate greed. And yet its just not in his character to make a public case about the Billions of dollars Spider-Man earned for Marvel/Disney/Sony.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2014 12:31:22 GMT -5
By which you mean, I suspect, that you were hoping we'd get to hear Scalia weigh in on the artistic merits of the Incredible Hulk while the otherwise mute Thomas continued to act as his Ed McMahon, complete with the occasional " Hey-ooooo!!!" & " You are correct, sir!" Pre-zackly. But, that's politics. Don't wanna start no argument. Been there, done that, bought the "I'm with stupid" T-shirt. ... A sound philosophy. Politics does get alluded to occasionally, probably by me more than anyone else (I'm pretty much to the left of ... well, sanity, I guess). Somehow, no squabbling has arisen. |
|
