Kirby vs. Marvel to the Supreme Court?

[joe_collector]

So if I owe you money,

 

No they didn't, that's what the dispute was about - Disney not paying legally owed royalties as a "negotiating tactic". Why are you commenting when you have zero clue?

 

The hospital went after Disney for missing royalty payments and understating revenues, both of which it won - look it up.

[joe_collector]

 

Disney quits Peter Pan film after row over Gt Ormond St

 

The Walt Disney Corporation pulled out of a new £60 million film version of Peter Pan after refusing to give a share of its profits to Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital in London.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1447493/Disney-quits-Peter-Pan-film-after-row-over-Gt-Ormond-St.html

[jaybuck43]

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.

 

Actually the CTEA was pushed for by Sonny Bono (who was not a Senator) and had a couple million reasons of his own to extend copyright. When he died his wife Mary replaced him in Congress and she lobbied hard to get it passed, saying that it was his biggest wish to extend copyright indefinitely. Other congressmen and senators who were friends with him pushed for it and it was passed. Yes disney lobbied for it as well because Mickey was coming due, but it's not like they were the only ones pushing for it. By the way, the full name of the act is actually "The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act"

[Buzzetta]

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

 

No, not a fanboy. Disney was sued due to a disagreement as to what constitutes work that royalties should be paid for under the terms of a contract. Disney fought a lawsuit allowing a court to settle the matter. Disney does not have to pay royalties for things outside the terms of the contract.

 

What you or I personally feel should be done is irrelevant really. The two parties settled the matter in a court of law and according to the hospital's website Disney abides by the terms of the contract. It does not look like the hospital made any ground in making claim against Disney for violating the terms of the contract. The hospital thought they were entitled to something that the court ultimately decided they were not.

 

Since the article you linked refers specifically to "Peter and the Starcatchers."

Again, from the hospital's website:

 

Q. What about other books written about Peter Pan, such as Peter and the Starcatchers?

 

A. That book, together with the titles that followed in the series, originated in the USA and are 'prequels', ie the action is set before that of Barrie's story. We received royalties for these titles from European publishers when Peter Pan was still in copyright but not since 2008, when Peter Pan entered the public domain in Europe.

 

At this point I don't know what else you want me to tell you. Read the hospital's website for yourself as to what the status is and was.

[joe_collector]

Joe, that is not completely true. This is from the FAQ from the Great Ormand Street Hospital website.

 

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.

 

This only pertains to the FIRST movie and subsequent Peter Pan-based movies, books, TV animation, plays, etc. have adjusted agreements.

 

That's why Disney recently dropped out of a Peter Pan movie, as it would actually have to pay royalties to the kid's hospital.

[joe_collector]

At this point I don't know what else you want me to tell you.

 

It's pretty clear that once Disney bought Marvel, they suddenly became Telflon Don around here.

[shadroch]

Or read the article that you posted. The one where the hospital spokesman talks about the relationship.

[joe_collector]

Yes disney lobbied for it as well because Mickey was coming due, but it's not like they were the only ones pushing for it.

 

The timing of it is what makes it so obvious -previously a lot of similar characters went out of copyright (like Popeye) and those got a lot of press, but the minute Mickey is at risk, the wheels of US politics suddenly go into high gear.

[Unca Ben]

You mean THIS hospital?

[joe_collector]

And I guess since they bought Marvel, old Walt wasn't an anti-Semitic racist either, right?

[joe_collector]

You mean THIS hospital?

 

Maybe if Disney wasn't such a Devil and didn't make the hospital use all their money on lawyers...

[Buzzetta]

Joe, that is not completely true. This is from the FAQ from the Great Ormand Street Hospital website.

 

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.

 

This only pertains to the FIRST movie and subsequent Peter Pan-based movies, books, TV animation, plays, etc. have adjusted agreements.

 

That's why Disney recently dropped out of a Peter Pan movie, as it would actually have to pay royalties to the kid's hospital.

 

It sounds like your gripe is not with me but the source of the quote which just happens to be the Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity.

 

:shrug:

 

Perhaps you should write to them and complain that they need to have an FAQ outlining the terms of their agreement in regards to copyright that is more up to your liking.

 

[joe_collector]

It sounds like your gripe is not with me but the source of the quote which just happens to be the Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity.

 

You do realize this was part of the settlement, right?

 

Disney lawyers probably wrote that.

[Buzzetta]

It sounds like your gripe is not with me but the source of the quote which just happens to be the Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity.

 

You do realize this was part of the settlement, right?

 

Disney lawyers probably wrote that.

 

right back at ya! I can play the emoticon game as well...

 

 

 

 

 

[shadroch]

This is from the article jc linked. I'm guessing he didn't bother to read it. Its also from 2003, which isn't very recent.

 

A spokesman for Great Ormond Street Hospital said it had no idea why Disney had pulled out of the project. "We knew they were involved in the film and then heard that they had had a change of heart.

"We have no idea what brought that about. We are very proud of our excellent working relationship with the Disney company."

The film itself has also been embroiled in controversy. Last year P.J. Hogan, the director, was criticised when he revealed that the film would be risque in its treatment of the relationship between the eponymous hero and Wendy, portraying them as two teenagers in love.

Peter Pan was described by casting agents as a "12-year-old Errol Flynn" and Wendy as a "Lolita" figure on the verge of a sexual awakening.

 

 

 

[Marvel Zombie]

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.

 

 

 

the worst kind of dim wit nonsense I have ever read on the boards ...

 

And I say shame on Marvel corp to rip off Kirby the way the did and do

[Marvel Zombie]

 

Kirby was a powerhouse of raw, fresh ideas. He created his arsssh off during the marvel years.

 

So marvel should really, really be ashamed that they have chosen NOT to meet the Kirby estate in an agreement both can live with.

 

I mean Marvel sits on a billion $ profit and they refuse to share a tiny, tiny, tiny procentage of this with the estate representing the man who created it.

 

I mean how gready can you get? Bad style imho.

 

 

 

[ChrisInBaltimore]

Didn't I read somewhere that Disney/Marvel did give money to the Kirby estate but it didn't meat their demands?

[mackenzie999]

I love much of Jack's work, and it's a bummer that he wasn't paid what his work ultimately ended up being worth, but work for hire is exactly that.

 

This is not a direct parallel, but I liken the situation to someone giving a lottery ticket as a gift, and the recipient wins millions. Since it was a gift the recipient is well within their rights to keep all the money, but the decent thing to do would be to slide a little cash to the giver as a way of saying thanks.

[zosocane]

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.

 

I just looked at the Court's docket and didn't see anything regarding this case.