Marvel Suing to Keep Rights to ‘Avengers’ Characters From Copyright Termination

[ghostryder]

Marvel Suing to Keep Rights to ‘Avengers’ Characters From Copyright Termination

Blockbuster lawsuits filed today will decide future ownership of characters including Iron Man and Spider-Man.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Egon Spengler]

I hope Disney loses.

 

[renaissance_man]

I hope Disney loses.

Why?

 

[PoopaPapaPalps]

Because they've had a long-standing stance against copyrights lapsing into someone else's hands or---god forbid---the public domain. They've been lobbying for years against public domain as much of their IP's technically fall into it, but they've rallied and continuously found loopholes to retain what would otherwise be available to pretty much anyone besides them. It really is about killing competition/options and being the only and biggest game in town.

If they won, it'd set a precedence that would only encourage them to go further later.

Which is most likely to happen.

 

[Egon Spengler]

Because they've had a long-standing stance against copyrights lapsing into someone else's hands or---god forbid---the public domain. They've been lobbying for years against public domain as much of their IP's technically fall into it, but they've rallied and continuously found loopholes to retain what would otherwise be available to pretty much anyone besides them. It really is about killing competition/options and being the only and biggest game in town.

If they won, it'd set a precedence that would only encourage them to go further later.

Which is most likely to happen.

Exactly. They are a hypocritical company.

 

[Lightning]

While I agree with the idea that Disney has issues when it comes to IP rights, in this case they are correct. These characters were clearly made under work-for-hire, and the estates don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[PoopaPapaPalps]

That's the exact ruling that originally left Jerry Seigel and Joel Shuster penniless for much of their life after moving on from Superman. Same for Bill Finger and Jerry Robinson for Batman, Ditko and Kirby, and many more of these characters' creators (and their families) who were shafted from seeing a red cent of their work proliferated.

This only benefits companies, not people. The people that do benefit are few and were already rich enough to begin with.

 

[cboath]

That's the exact ruling that originally left Jerry Seigel and Joel Shuster penniless for much of their life after moving on from Superman. Same for Bill Finger and Jerry Robinson for Batman, Ditko and Kirby, and many more of these characters' creators (and their families) who were shafted from seeing a red cent of their work proliferated.

This only benefits companies, not people. The people that do benefit are few and were already rich enough to begin with.

Like it or not, your company pays you to develop something that makes them billions, they are not obligated to pay you anything more than your salary. Sure, ethically they should share the wealth with who had the idea, but they're not evil for not doing so. ***holes? Absolutely. But there's no legal obligation if it's simply from 'doing their jobs'.

 

[Riceball]

Like it or not, your company pays you to develop something that makes them billions, they are not obligated to pay you anything more than your salary. Sure, ethically they should share the wealth with who had the idea, but they're not evil for not doing so. ***holes? Absolutely. But there's no legal obligation if it's simply from 'doing their jobs'.

Exactly, and this is why a bunch of ex-Marvel artists and writers like Jim Lee, Chris Claremont, & others, left to form Image with the idea that the creators would own the rights to the characters they'd create. So, while I sympathize with the families of the creators of these popular characters, it's hardly corporate greed or doing anything unprecedented. A compromise would be what DC does now, a byline in the credits saying X was created by Y and a bit of money (tens of thousands) for them every time they use the characters in a movie.

 

[enterprise0216]

Well the legal fight is on and comes down who is going to spend the biggest bucks and has the craziest lawyer to spin BS lies in order to get a win Vs. those lawyers who are hell bent on the truth winning out. It’s tough for sure I still collect comics and I gotta Image Comics is always a great read and the art work is terrific as well. Just have to be patient and see how it all goes. I bet Kevin Fiege is like what??? Copyrights give and take. Everyone here has made some really points.

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

Like it or not, your company pays you to develop something that makes them billions, they are not obligated to pay you anything more than your salary. Sure, ethically they should share the wealth with who had the idea, but they're not evil for not doing so. ***holes? Absolutely. But there's no legal obligation if it's simply from 'doing their jobs'.

I'm not a lawyer, but that's my guess as well. For instance, my grandpa and uncle worked for Mound Labs (Monsanto) here in Miamisburg, OH. They developed everything from nuclear triggers for nuclear weapons to the radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) there, a much later design is powering the newest Mars Rover. Anyway my grandpa worked with the guy who had the patent for the RTG and worked with him building the RTG for the Galileo probe. That guy has the patent for designing the original in 1954, but he didn't make any money off of it, Monsanto did. I think this is a similar situation that, barring some contractual things, means they developed the characters for Marvel so therefore Marvel owns them.

 

[Lightning]

That guy has the patent for designing the original in 1954, but he didn't make any money off of it, Monsanto did.

That's actually an excellent comparison. An invention is worthless without a way to produce and market it. Creating Superman, for example, is worthless without a way to print, market and sell the books. And thats the expensive and risky part, which is why the publisher makes the profit.

Artists today may know to negotiate some kind of "successful character bonus", and they learned that based on the experiences of the first generation of creators. But it doesn't work retroactively.

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

Disney is a company that prides/presents itself as a company with strong family values and making decisions which reflect that. Leaving these artists/creators with whom much of it's success is built on out in the cold per say does not demonstrate said values. Disney is most likely in the right legally but legal and ethical/moral are not the same. I think they're missing a great PR opportunity.

 

[cboath]

That's actually an excellent comparison. An invention is worthless without a way to produce and market it. Creating Superman, for example, is worthless without a way to print, market and sell the books. And thats the expensive and risky part, which is why the publisher makes the profit.

Artists today may know to negotiate some kind of "successful character bonus", and they learned that based on the experiences of the first generation of creators. But it doesn't work retroactively.

Put that way, it's actually a reason the publisher should be paying the creator a percentage. No one is saying they backers shouldn't make money, they're saying the creator should be exclude. And, no, they shouldn't be, but under certain conditions they're legally allowed to be. That everyone doesn't take issue with that should be the problem.

 

[JoeG]

Disney is a company that prides/presents itself as a company with strong family values and making decisions which reflect that. Leaving these artists/creators with whom much of it's success is built on out in the cold per say does not demonstrate said values. Disney is most likely in the right legally but legal and ethical/moral are not the same. I think they're missing a great PR opportunity.

Marvel Comics was screwing over creators long before they were owned by Disney. Putting the onus squarely on them isn't a fair representation of the situation. Besides, this is all legal theatre anyway. Its part of the process these companies go through. They'll settle with the families just like they almost always do.

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

Marvel Comics was screwing over creators long before they were owned by Disney. Putting the onus squarely on them isn't a fair representation of the situation. Besides, this is all legal theatre anyway. Its part of the process these companies go through. They'll settle with the families just like they almost always do.

Marvel and all of its success & shortcomings are now Disney's responsibility. Making past creators have to fight for every penny they get doesn't seem to represent the values that they claim to hold, which is a subjective interpretation not a misrepresentation of the situation. Disney could easily take the high road here and it would look great for them, but may cause other issues. Fair is a point of view.

 

[batguy]

The whole issue begs for more discussions and better laws.

Mickey Mouse is only about 30 years younger than Count Dracula. Look at how differently they have been treated. Dracula has been in the public domain almost the whole time. He is arguably the most common character in all of cinema. Whereas Mickey has stayed privately owned and tightly controlled the whole time.

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

I will say that this is one area I would agree that Capitalism fails on. On the other hand, I would say that you would almost have to negotiate in your contract that you would retain rights to your characters and I don't know what company would go for that. I doubt any big established companies would.

 

[Lightning]

Put that way, it's actually a reason the publisher should be paying the creator a percentage. No one is saying they backers shouldn't make money, they're saying the creator should be exclude.

You have to put it in the original contract. It's not like the precursor to DC knew what Superman would become in the beginning either.

On the other hand, I would say that you would almost have to negotiate in your contract that you would retain rights to your characters and I don't know what company would go for that.

You wouldn't keep the rights, there just needs to be a industry standard for rewarding creators for later use of characters.

Keep in mind, however, that the way compensation is calculated could have major impacts on what characters are chosen to appear in various new stories, as people try to game the system.

 

[The Goon]

Disney is a company that prides/presents itself as a company with strong family values and making decisions which reflect that...

Disney was that company decades ago. All of that "family" stuff went down the crapper the moment Uncle Walt died and The Mouse became a corporation. Now they have shareholders to answer to, and those shareholders want their cut regardless of where the money comes from. And since the "artists" who create the characters and such are usually not much more than "guns for hire" working under contract for The Mouse...well, you get the idea.