|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2021 23:24:09 GMT -5
Article hereSimilar to the suit filed by the Kirby estate against Marvel a few years back and the suit filed against DC by the Siegel estate which resulted in the By Special Arrangement with the family of Jerry Siegel appearing on all Superman books, the Ditko estate, led by Patrick Ditko has filed suit to terminate the copyrights on the early appearance of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange. If the Ditko estate wins, Marvel/Disney would still hold the trademarks but not be able to use the content introduced in those early stories (like costumes, supporting characters, secret identities, villains, etc.) while the Ditko estate would own the content but not be able to use the trademarked names in titles or marketing material. Of course, the most likely outcome is a settlement, similar to what the Siegel and Kirby estates got, and pretty much all the legal wrangling now is about leverage in the settlement to determine how big the settlement is, and not about the case actually going to trial. I say good on the Ditko estate and hopefully they get the kind of deal Marvel should have given long ago, I jut hate seeing all the legal ugliness and hoop jumping that has to take place before creators and their descendant get a fair share from the fruits of the creative labors they undertook long ago. -M
|
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Sept 24, 2021 7:22:37 GMT -5
Well, I'm not going to shed any tears if Disney/Marvel end up paying out a big wad of cash to the Ditko estate. But I have to say that this is something Ditko himself should have done a *long* time ago, but steadfastly refused.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Sept 24, 2021 7:58:51 GMT -5
Obviously, those who had a hand in creating any work of fiction should be compensated. The problem is that decades ago, you could count on one hand the number of artists who ever had or exercised that right (until bigger industry names fought for the creatives).
Oh, I sense the coming of one of 50 trillion anti-Stan Lee rants in 5...4...3...2..
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Sept 24, 2021 9:00:20 GMT -5
Stan did not stop the artist from receiving compensation. He was an employee like them without that power. Stan himself did not receive compensation until he made that sweetheart deal around the time of the first Spider-Man movie.
Was it wrong for the industry to constantly screw the creators? You bet. Was it Stan's fault? No.
Kirby feeling unappreciated? Yeah, that's on Stan.
|
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Sept 24, 2021 13:17:16 GMT -5
"filed notice of termination with the United States Copyright Office with regards to the copyrights of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange that are currently held by Marvel Entertainment. Ditko, as the co-creator of both of the characters, is attempting to use a right introduced in the 1976 Copyright Act that allows creators to terminate copyrights of works that the creators had previously assigned to another person or entity"
This is NOT a "lawsuit".
The Kirby estate DID NOT sue Marvel. Marvel SUED the Kirby estate when they went thru the proper legal precedures under the 1976 Copyright revision.
However, in my view, the Copyright Revision of 1976 was and always has been a CON JOB. While allegedly designed to redress the problem of creators COERCED into signing over rights to what THEY created, it put far too many limitations on. Creators had to wait X number of years, and had a limited time frame in which to file for Revision. Both of these, to me, are ABSURD.
By rights, to me, Rights Revision should have been made AUTOMATIC and taking place after a maximum of TEN YEARS, tops. That would give a company plenty of time to profit wildly from something. The way it is now, more often than not, the creator is ALREADY DEAD by the time the window to apply for Revision occurs. Clearly, this was designed to fall in favor of corporations. In the case of Marvel, the company's been bought-and-sold so many times since Kirby & Ditko created SPIDER-MAN and Ditko created DR. STRANGE, nobody who around at the time is still around on either side.
"Here, Marvel Entertainment claims that Steve Ditko created these characters as "work for hire" and thus cannot actually terminate the copyrights of the characters."
THIS is a FLAT-OUT LIE. And always has been.
In order for something to be considered "work for hire", the creator has to be an SALARIED EMPLOYEE with an hourly rate, benfits, etc. and, the specific work must be covered by a SIGNED CONTRACT. "NONE of the above".
It was the very fact that there were NO contracts when Perfect Film & Chemical (a C.I.A. front company) bought Marvel from Martin Goodman (always considered as "small-time" racketeer by Jack Liebowitz and his ilk) that they went into a blind panic that Jack Kirby might try to sue for ownership of HIS OWN CREATIONS. So, rather than grant him the little he actually wanted-- a contract guaranteeing X number of pages a month and PAY AND CREDIT for his writing, they spent 3 whole years trying to "RUN HIM OFF"... which, finally happened, when Carmine Infantino offered Kirby the contract he wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by SJNeal on Sept 24, 2021 18:13:02 GMT -5
If Disney/Marvel (and DC for that matter) had any sense (and decency) they'd get ahead of this stuff and start compensating both their current creators, and legacy creators estates, better NOW before things get to this point - which they will, with every big character whenever the time comes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2021 19:13:34 GMT -5
If Disney/Marvel (and DC for that matter) had any sense (and decency) they'd get ahead of this stuff and start compensating both their current creators, and legacy creators estates, better NOW before things get to this point - which they will, with every big character whenever the time comes. Marvel/Disney is not getting ahead of it, they are fighting tooth and claw... storyMarvel/Disney has just filed a counter suit against the Ditko estate and several other creator estates seeking a preliminary ruling that all such termination cases are baseless since the works were created on a work-for-hire basis. -M |
|
|
|
Post by SJNeal on Sept 24, 2021 22:24:48 GMT -5
^ ^ ^ I guess my point was that going forward (in a perfect world) they wouldn't have to worry about these types of lawsuits if they'd just play fair from the get-go. And instead of waiting for the next one, give current creators better contracts so their heirs won't find it necessary to seek compensation decades later.  |
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Sept 25, 2021 7:30:01 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with SJNeal, that's been my stance for ages now. But surprise, surprise, the mega-corporation does precisely the opposite, as per the article mrp linked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Sept 25, 2021 9:41:10 GMT -5
I guess my point was that going forward (in a perfect world) they wouldn't have to worry about these types of lawsuits if they'd just play fair from the get-go. And instead of waiting for the next one, give current creators better contracts so their heirs won't find it necessary to seek compensation decades later. Disney/Marvel is a multi-million dollar corporation, why on earth would they ever play fair?
Hell, I think Starlin mentioned that he only got a pittance for Thanos in the Marvel movies and made more off the work he did for DC
|
|
|
|
Post by beyonder1984 on Oct 11, 2021 8:06:19 GMT -5
Sometimes I wonder if mainstream journalists know Larry Leiber is Stan Lee's brother, and how cringe it is for Marvel to be suing him.
|
|
|
|
Post by dabellwrites on Nov 29, 2021 14:36:24 GMT -5
Well, I'm not going to shed any tears if Disney/Marvel end up paying out a big wad of cash to the Ditko estate. But I have to say that this is something Ditko himself should have done a *long* time ago, but steadfastly refused. Ditko wasn't that type of creator. Of Kirby, Lee, and Ditko, he lived an obscure life away from the glamour. |
|
