Kirby vs. Marvel to the Supreme Court?

[Key Largo Comics]

Looks like this could happen...

 

Kirby V. Marvel May Head To Supreme Court, With Powerful Friends In The Kirby Estate’s Corner

 

http://comicsalliance.com/kirby-v-marvel-may-head-to-supreme-court-with-powerful-friends-in-the-kirby-estates-corner/

[That Ron Dude]

It reminds me of situations where couples choose to make a prenuptial contract using a lawyer, then after their divorce the courts decide not to honour it.

 

Marvel made every attempt to create a work for hire situation. Kirby had been an editor and did the same thing to other creators. He knew what he was getting into and at one point, the story goes it was around the time of FF60 and at his wife's insistence, he decided to stop creating characters for Marvel.

 

I think he got screwed. It would be nice if Marvel showed 1% of the heroics of the least of their characters and spread out the money a bit. Why just last week I sold my FF#1 for two thousand dollars. I sent Stan a check for $500 and sent Jack's family a check for $500. It was only fair. I will keep sending them money when I make these profits which were completely unexpected when I bought their comics. I urge you to do the same thing. It is only fair. Maybe Jack's family will use it to offset their legal bills.

 

Seriously though, it is only human nature for Jack's family to chase the money. It is only human nature for a corporation to defend itself.

 

 

 

[mrwoogieman]

Mark Evanier's amicus brief is pretty interesting. I love his table of authorities!

 

[General Zod]

This is kind of funny to me because some boardies told me this would never happen. This is America's court system. Of course it could happen.

 

I'll be watching this case with a lot of interest.

[dupont2005]

This is kind of funny to me because some boardies told me this would never happen. This is America's court system. Of course it could happen.

 

I'll be watching this case with a lot of interest.

It wouldn't have happened if this were a fight over less wealthy publishers and less valuable intellectual property. Kirkman and Moore didn't go to the supreme court, because neither of them are Disney and can afford to make a case so expensive for the other party they have no choice but to abandon their complaint.

[zosocane]

This is kind of funny to me because some boardies told me this would never happen. This is America's court system. Of course it could happen.

 

I'll be watching this case with a lot of interest.

 

Technically, nothing has happened yet before the Supreme Court of the United States -- just the filing of a certiorari petition (basically,a "please, please hear my case" request) from the Kirby estate and amici briefs from supporters of the estate seeking the Supreme Court to reverse the federal appellate court's ruling in favor of Marvel. The Supreme Court generally has complete discretion in deciding whether to hear a case. I haven't read the briefs, but based on what I've read in the press describing this as classic work-for-hire, I don't think the Court is going to say that it will hear the case.

[Bird]

I thought I read that the justices talked about the Kirby case in a private hearing/conference and that that implied they were interested in hearing the case formally.

[Ares]

It reminds me of situations where couples choose to make a prenuptial contract using a lawyer, then after their divorce the courts decide not to honour it.

 

Marvel made every attempt to create a work for hire situation. Kirby had been an editor and did the same thing to other creators. He knew what he was getting into and at one point, the story goes it was around the time of FF60 and at his wife's insistence, he decided to stop creating characters for Marvel.

 

I think he got screwed. It would be nice if Marvel showed 1% of the heroics of the least of their characters and spread out the money a bit. Why just last week I sold my FF#1 for two thousand dollars. I sent Stan a check for $500 and sent Jack's family a check for $500. It was only fair. I will keep sending them money when I make these profits which were completely unexpected when I bought their comics. I urge you to do the same thing. It is only fair. Maybe Jack's family will use it to offset their legal bills.

 

Seriously though, it is only human nature for Jack's family to chase the money. It is only human nature for a corporation to defend itself.

 

If true then boo on him. I wonder if Marvel will bring that fact up.

[DougC]

If this were just a simple case of someone that created something and didn't get their just credit I would be more inclined to side with the heirs of Kirby. That is not the case here I believe; nor do I believe Lisa Kirby deserves any money from Marvel/Disney (which I believe is the real case).

 

I love Jack Kirby for what he did for comics but it was a work for hire agreement.

[joe_collector]

The key element here is that Disney is the Devil, and would fight to the death with your crippled grandmother over a nickel in the street.

 

This is the same company who willfully ripped off a children's hospital on owed revenues from the Peter Pan movies, toys and licenses. Not only that, but they recently cancelled another upcoming Peter Pan movie because they'd have to slide a few bucks to help some sick, injured, crippled, and dying kids.

 

Disney is *not* "just a corporation looking to protect its assets", it's the worst example of American greed gone wild.

[shadroch]

The key element here is that Disney is the Devil, and would fight to the death with your crippled grandmother over a nickel in the street.

 

This is the same company who willfully ripped off a children's hospital on owed revenues from the Peter Pan movies, toys and licenses. Not only that, but they recently cancelled another upcoming Peter Pan movie because they'd have to slide a few bucks to help some sick, injured, crippled, and dying kids.

 

Disney is *not* "just a corporation looking to protect its assets", it's the worst example of American greed gone wild.

 

Got anything to support this?

[joe_collector]

Got anything to support this?

 

You're joking right?

 

JM Barrie gave all rights to Peter Pan to the Great Ormond Street Hospital, and there have been many legal wrangles over unpaid/understated royalties. Disney's latest scam was trying to legally steal the Peter Pan license, stating that since they made a move about it, they owned the copyright, but once that failed, they cancelled the movie rather than supporting a children's hospital through royalty payments.

[Buzzetta]

The key element here is that Disney is the Devil, and would fight to the death with your crippled grandmother over a nickel in the street.

 

This is the same company who willfully ripped off a children's hospital on owed revenues from the Peter Pan movies, toys and licenses. Not only that, but they recently cancelled another upcoming Peter Pan movie because they'd have to slide a few bucks to help some sick, injured, crippled, and dying kids.

 

Disney is *not* "just a corporation looking to protect its assets", it's the worst example of American greed gone wild.

 

Got anything to support this?

 

Joe, that is not completely true. This is from the FAQ from the Great Ormand Street Hospital website. Anything Disney 'owes' they have paid.

http://www.gosh.org/gen/peterpan/copyright/faq/#Copyright

 

Q. What was the deal with Disney?

 

A. Walt Disney Corporation were licensed exclusive animation rights by Great Ormond Street Hospital in 1939 and the animated film came out in 1953. Their own sequel, Return to Neverland, came out in 2002, also under licence from Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity.

 

Q. Does the hospital or charity receive income from sales of Disney's Peter Pan DVDs and merchandise such as toys, games, etc?

 

A. No, the original contract did not include these since they did not exist in 1939 so the hospital or charity did not (and does not) receive any income from DVDs or toys or any other merchandise.

 

 

 

[shadroch]

That's nothing like the way the hospitals own web page describes the situation. They clearly state they don't have all rights, and only can collect a royalty on certain items.

[Fan Boy]

The key element here is that Disney is the Devil, and would fight to the death with your crippled grandmother over a nickel in the street.

 

This is the same company who willfully ripped off a children's hospital on owed revenues from the Peter Pan movies, toys and licenses. Not only that, but they recently cancelled another upcoming Peter Pan movie because they'd have to slide a few bucks to help some sick, injured, crippled, and dying kids.

 

Disney is *not* "just a corporation looking to protect its assets", it's the worst example of American greed gone wild.

 

Got anything to support this?

 

Joe, that is not completely true. This is from the FAQ from the Great Ormand Street Hospital website. Anything Disney 'owes' they have paid.

http://www.gosh.org/gen/peterpan/copyright/faq/#Copyright

 

Q. What was the deal with Disney?

 

A. Walt Disney Corporation were licensed exclusive animation rights by Great Ormond Street Hospital in 1939 and the animated film came out in 1953. Their own sequel, Return to Neverland, came out in 2002, also under licence from Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity.

 

Q. Does the hospital or charity receive income from sales of Disney's Peter Pan DVDs and merchandise such as toys, games, etc?

 

A. No, the original contract did not include these since they did not exist in 1939 so the hospital or charity did not (and does not) receive any income from DVDs or toys or any other merchandise.

 

 

 

I got to say - along I hate to say, but Disney is smart in keeping their original contracts from decades past. They can use these against today of anything with the technology of merchandise like the DVD or Pixar Studios. Make me wonder how they word the lines in the contract from 1939, and still met our current level of tech?

[Unca Ben]

That's nothing like the way the hospitals own web page describes the situation. They clearly state they don't have all rights, and only can collect a royalty on certain items.

 

Stop it, shad and buzz.

I prefer hyperbole over facts. It's more fun.

[Buzzetta]

The key element here is that Disney is the Devil, and would fight to the death with your crippled grandmother over a nickel in the street.

 

This is the same company who willfully ripped off a children's hospital on owed revenues from the Peter Pan movies, toys and licenses. Not only that, but they recently cancelled another upcoming Peter Pan movie because they'd have to slide a few bucks to help some sick, injured, crippled, and dying kids.

 

Disney is *not* "just a corporation looking to protect its assets", it's the worst example of American greed gone wild.

 

Got anything to support this?

 

Joe, that is not completely true. This is from the FAQ from the Great Ormand Street Hospital website. Anything Disney 'owes' they have paid.

http://www.gosh.org/gen/peterpan/copyright/faq/#Copyright

 

Q. What was the deal with Disney?

 

A. Walt Disney Corporation were licensed exclusive animation rights by Great Ormond Street Hospital in 1939 and the animated film came out in 1953. Their own sequel, Return to Neverland, came out in 2002, also under licence from Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity.

 

Q. Does the hospital or charity receive income from sales of Disney's Peter Pan DVDs and merchandise such as toys, games, etc?

 

A. No, the original contract did not include these since they did not exist in 1939 so the hospital or charity did not (and does not) receive any income from DVDs or toys or any other merchandise.

 

 

 

I got to say - along I hate to say, but Disney is smart in keeping their original contracts from decades past. They can use these against today of anything with the technology of merchandise like the DVD or Pixar Studios. Make me wonder how they word the lines in the contract from 1939, and still met our current level of tech?

 

Believe it or not it has also been used in reverse. For example, take the series 21 Jumpstreet an the Wonder Years. Those TV series utilized music from many contemporary artists when they aired on TV. However, once the studios wanted to release those series on DVD, Blu Ray or digital format, the rights for the music needed to be renegotiated as the terms of the contract did not apply to those forms of media distribution. The result is that on the DVD and Blu Ray releases most of the music has been substituted for session recordings.

[joe_collector]

Anything Disney 'owes' they have paid.

 

 

So if I owe you money, I refuse to pay and set a team of lawyers on your butt, then years later the courts force me to pay you... that makes me a good guy?

 

What's truly bizarre is that Disney got their senators to enact copyright extension the year the Mickey Mouse came due, and then sued the hospital saying that their copyright expired. Disney truly is the devil.

[Buzzetta]

Anything Disney 'owes' they have paid.

 

 

So if I owe you money, I refuse to pay and set a team of lawyers on your butt, then years later the courts force me to pay you... that makes me a good guy?

 

They paid the money that was owed. They do not have to pay money on things that do not owe. If there is a dispute where the line was of what is owed and what is not, that is very common. It does not make a company 'bad' or 'evil' in going to court in order for a third party to determine where that line is. That stuff happens all the time.

 

 

Now if you want to criticize them for the stunt they pulled in suing a day care center... that is a different story. I get that Disney had to protect it's trademarks but should have stepped in and formally granted those Florida daycare centers the rights to depict it's characters as well as sent some of their people over there to draw and paint the murals for the daycare center.

[joe_collector]

Wow, do you work for Disney, or is this the fanboy in your talking?

 

Disney Sued for Copyright Infringement

 

http://dunlapcodding.com/phosita/2004/10/disney-sued-copyright-infringement