Stan Lee Media and Disney Battle For Ownership of Marvel Characters 152
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."
Skimpiest article ever (Score:5, 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?
Re:Skimpiest article ever (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Skimpiest article ever (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. The blood still won't come out.
We can be certain of one thing (Score:5, Informative)
The [wikipedia.org] actual [wikipedia.org] people [wikipedia.org] who came up with the characters definitely don't own them.
Thanks, pro-corporate copyright laws and contracts!
Re:We can be certain of one thing (Score:5, Informative)
The actual people who came up with the characters sold them for money.
what a showboat (Score:1)
Re: (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.
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.
Re: what a showboat (Score:1)
Untrue. Many artists like John Byrne sell commissions and DisneyMarvel overlook it.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 li
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:We can be certain of one thing (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, see "unbalanced employment negotiation"
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about royalties, not guarantees.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I create programs for an employer. Should that be treated any differently than other works?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:We can be certain of one thing (Score:4, 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.
Re:We can be certain of one thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
this NEVER happens in the comic industry. unless your name is Todd McFarlane
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We can be certain of one thing (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Apples and oranges, logically.
Only if the burger flipper in question was also the person who invented Big Macs or Chicken McNuggets.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a character for use in a gay porno.
$5m might be a sound starting point.
Re:We can be certain of one thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We can be certain of one thing (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.
Re:We can be certain of one thing (Score:4, Insightful)
THAT is a huge scam.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We can be certain of one thing (Score:5, Informative)
Wedding Photography (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 $$$ making it difficult for us non-profits, or they will insist it be locked down on a website, or a horrible watermark. I got into a big argument with one guy who does beautiful photos but so possessive of them, "you don't understand, people may st
Re: (Score:2)
From my experience trying to find a photog for events, i.e. engineers week banquets, is really hard. So far we've been lucky, mostly be accident (someone is willing to jump in at last minute). Either photog will charge lots of $$$ 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 u
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Which candidates are going to throw out the current copyright mess and rebuild it from the ground up?
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
You idealists are SOOOOOOOO cute with your ridiculous, not-working-in-the-real-world talk.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Every vote counts. Every vote counts just as much as the rest of the 80k - 130k [census.gov] 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 surr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
And people who write software (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Bah, I was thinking Matrix at first and then the Tim Burton movie popped in my head. Sorry, Johnny Depp.
Re:And people who write software (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:And people who write software (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ima
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:And people who write software (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
"I know ice sculpting and hedge art."
Re: (Score:2)
Background material: (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Re:Background material: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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!"
Re: (Score:2)
The person in question was ultimately extradited to the US and convicted. The point was that the company turned shady very quickly.
But (Score:2)
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
Ah, the irony... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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 [wikipedia.org]
this means that in 2019 some 1923 copyrighted materials will hit the public domain. if they aren't extended before then.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
If you fight Disney in a copyright battle you will lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're Deadmau5 :-P
Re: (Score:1)
If you fight Disney in a copyright battle you will lose.
Unless you're Deadmau5 :-P
That was trademark.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot Stan Lee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)