Marvel filed five lawsuits on Friday to block Ditko's & Lee's brothers (and others) from reclaiming copyrights 3 3

[HighVoltage]

Link:  Variety article

Story:

Marvel Sues to Block Heirs From Reclaiming Spider-Man, Doctor Strange Copyrights

Marvel filed five lawsuits on Friday seeking to block comic book creators and their heirs from reclaiming copyrights to such major characters as Spider-Man and Doctor Strange.

The move comes after heirs of five Marvel authors filed dozens of termination notices with the U.S. Copyright Office. If they were to succeed, the notices would not prevent Marvel from using the disputed characters, which were created by multiple collaborators. They would however require the studio to make payments to the heirs.

In the lawsuits, Marvel argues that the characters were created under “work for hire” arrangements, and that the heirs have no valid claim to the copyrights.

Marvel points to a key case involving Jack Kirby, who co-created “The X-Men,” “Thor” and “Iron Man.” In that case, Kirby’s heirs sought to reclaim copyright to his creations, but the federal courts sided with Marvel, finding that the characters were made under work-for-hire arrangements.

Marvel’s lawyers, led by Daniel Petrocelli, say these cases present “virtually identical circumstances.” Marvel is seeking a declaration that it holds the valid copyrights to the disputed characters, but is not pursuing any damages.

“Since these were works made for hire and thus owned by Marvel, we filed these lawsuits to confirm that the termination notices are invalid and of no legal effect,” Petrocelli said in a statement.

Marvel filed the suits in New York and Los Angeles against Lawrence D. Lieber, Patrick S. Ditko, Michelle Hart-Rico and Buz Donato Rico III, Keith A. Dettwiler, and Nanci Solo and Erik Colan.

Ditko is the brother of Steve Ditko, the co-creator of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange. Solo and Colan are the children of Gene Colan, co-creator of the Falcon and Captain Marvel. Dettwiler is the nephew of Don Heck, co-creator of Iron Man and Black Widow. Hart-Rico and Rico III are the heirs of Don Rico, who also co-created Black Widow. Lieber is the brother of Stan Lee, but filed termination notices on his own behalf for work he did for Marvel in 1962-64.

Under the Copyright Act 1976, heirs are permitted, in certain circumstances, to terminate the grant of a license or transfer to a copyrighted work — such as a comic book — via a properly executed notice.

Patrick S. Ditko’s notice of termination pertains to the first appearances of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange, in 1962 and 1963 respectively. His termination notice gives Marvel an end date of June 2023.

Nanci Solo and Erik Colan have given notice of termination to Marvel regarding dozens of comic books, including “Marvel Super-Heroes” Volume 1, #12, which features the first appearance of Captain Marvel and dozens of early editions of the “Captain America” comics, in which Falcon first appears.

There has been ongoing debate about how comic creators have been unfairly remunerated in light of the cinematic juggernauts their creations inspired.

When Ditko died in 2018, reports suggested his estate was worth only $1.3 million, despite having co-created one of the most famous comic book characters in the world.

It is a practice that continues to this day. Ed Brubaker, who created many of the storylines used in “Captain America: Civil War” — including the character of “The Winter Soldier,” played by Sebastian Stan on screen — spoke earlier this year about how he was treated by Marvel, both in terms of additional compensation (which he suggested was so paltry as to be insulting) and at the film’s premiere, where he was forced to watch in an “overflow” theater as opposed to the one with the film’s cast and Marvel executives.

“I have made more on SAG residuals than I have made on creating the character, for my one line that got cut,” he reportedly told Kevin Smith on his “Fatman Beyond” podcast.

However, comic creators have faced an uphill fight trying to reclaim copyrights. In 2012, a federal court ruled that Superman co-creator Joe Shuster’s sister could not terminate Warner Bros.’ copyright grant in the character due to a 1992 agreement between the studio and Shuster’s heirs, which prevented them from pursuing termination.

The exact nature of how Ditko’s and Colan’s heirs’ attempts to terminate will play out will similarly rest on what agreements they — and their predecessors — may have made with Marvel and whether those supersede the Copyright Act.

A rep for Patrick S. Ditko said the family wouldn’t be commenting. A spokesperson for Marvel did not respond to a request for comment.

============

It all just feels so very wrong...

[WolverineX]

On 9/24/2021 at 3:51 PM, HighVoltage said:

Link:  Variety article

Story:

Marvel Sues to Block Heirs From Reclaiming Spider-Man, Doctor Strange Copyrights

Marvel filed five lawsuits on Friday seeking to block comic book creators and their heirs from reclaiming copyrights to such major characters as Spider-Man and Doctor Strange.

The move comes after heirs of five Marvel authors filed dozens of termination notices with the U.S. Copyright Office. If they were to succeed, the notices would not prevent Marvel from using the disputed characters, which were created by multiple collaborators. They would however require the studio to make payments to the heirs.

In the lawsuits, Marvel argues that the characters were created under “work for hire” arrangements, and that the heirs have no valid claim to the copyrights.

Marvel points to a key case involving Jack Kirby, who co-created “The X-Men,” “Thor” and “Iron Man.” In that case, Kirby’s heirs sought to reclaim copyright to his creations, but the federal courts sided with Marvel, finding that the characters were made under work-for-hire arrangements.

Marvel’s lawyers, led by Daniel Petrocelli, say these cases present “virtually identical circumstances.” Marvel is seeking a declaration that it holds the valid copyrights to the disputed characters, but is not pursuing any damages.

“Since these were works made for hire and thus owned by Marvel, we filed these lawsuits to confirm that the termination notices are invalid and of no legal effect,” Petrocelli said in a statement.

Marvel filed the suits in New York and Los Angeles against Lawrence D. Lieber, Patrick S. Ditko, Michelle Hart-Rico and Buz Donato Rico III, Keith A. Dettwiler, and Nanci Solo and Erik Colan.

Ditko is the brother of Steve Ditko, the co-creator of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange. Solo and Colan are the children of Gene Colan, co-creator of the Falcon and Captain Marvel. Dettwiler is the nephew of Don Heck, co-creator of Iron Man and Black Widow. Hart-Rico and Rico III are the heirs of Don Rico, who also co-created Black Widow. Lieber is the brother of Stan Lee, but filed termination notices on his own behalf for work he did for Marvel in 1962-64.

Under the Copyright Act 1976, heirs are permitted, in certain circumstances, to terminate the grant of a license or transfer to a copyrighted work — such as a comic book — via a properly executed notice.

Patrick S. Ditko’s notice of termination pertains to the first appearances of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange, in 1962 and 1963 respectively. His termination notice gives Marvel an end date of June 2023.

Nanci Solo and Erik Colan have given notice of termination to Marvel regarding dozens of comic books, including “Marvel Super-Heroes” Volume 1, #12, which features the first appearance of Captain Marvel and dozens of early editions of the “Captain America” comics, in which Falcon first appears.

There has been ongoing debate about how comic creators have been unfairly remunerated in light of the cinematic juggernauts their creations inspired.

When Ditko died in 2018, reports suggested his estate was worth only $1.3 million, despite having co-created one of the most famous comic book characters in the world.

It is a practice that continues to this day. Ed Brubaker, who created many of the storylines used in “Captain America: Civil War” — including the character of “The Winter Soldier,” played by Sebastian Stan on screen — spoke earlier this year about how he was treated by Marvel, both in terms of additional compensation (which he suggested was so paltry as to be insulting) and at the film’s premiere, where he was forced to watch in an “overflow” theater as opposed to the one with the film’s cast and Marvel executives.

“I have made more on SAG residuals than I have made on creating the character, for my one line that got cut,” he reportedly told Kevin Smith on his “Fatman Beyond” podcast.

However, comic creators have faced an uphill fight trying to reclaim copyrights. In 2012, a federal court ruled that Superman co-creator Joe Shuster’s sister could not terminate Warner Bros.’ copyright grant in the character due to a 1992 agreement between the studio and Shuster’s heirs, which prevented them from pursuing termination.

The exact nature of how Ditko’s and Colan’s heirs’ attempts to terminate will play out will similarly rest on what agreements they — and their predecessors — may have made with Marvel and whether those supersede the Copyright Act.

A rep for Patrick S. Ditko said the family wouldn’t be commenting. A spokesperson for Marvel did not respond to a request for comment.

============

It all just feels so very wrong...

Disney will squash them.  The only thing they may value more than marvel superheroes  is baby Yoda 

[Bird]

there are many here who know more about Ditko than I do, but he appeared acutely aware of the work for hire standard. He seemed to be unsatisfied with Marvel's terms and credits which I interpret as part of his reasons for leaving ASM/Doc but he didn't challenge the copyrigt ever, did he? (I know timing is important here too.)

[Aman619]

Disney settled with Kirbys family, so The Ditkos are expecting the same. I wouldn't think the others have much of a chance at any payout. But maybe thats why they teamed up with the Ditkos.

 

[waaaghboss]

While I'd love to see the creator (or heirs) get some better financial compensation for works they've created that have generated so much in profit, copyrights in general have transformed beyond what they were meant to be in the first place.  

The fact that say, superman or micky mouse aren't public domain almost a century after their creation is just iabsurd 

[HotKey]

On 9/24/2021 at 10:52 PM, waaaghboss said:

The fact that say, superman or micky mouse aren't public domain almost a century after their creation is just iabsurd 

It is 100% from Disney's consistent efforts over the last 50 years.

https://priceonomics.com/how-mickey-mouse-evades-the-public-domain/

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 9/26/2021 at 12:02 AM, HotKey said:

It is 100% from Disney's consistent efforts over the last 50 years.

https://priceonomics.com/how-mickey-mouse-evades-the-public-domain/

[shadroch]

Someone has to explain to me why Ditko's  brother is entitled to  get rich off his brothers work?  At least Stan's brother is suing for work he actually did.

If a carpenter is paid to build a house and fifty years later the house is worth millions, does the carpenter get to sue or to claim he owns a piece of it?

[jaybuck43]

On 9/27/2021 at 1:03 PM, shadroch said:

Someone has to explain to me why Ditko's  brother is entitled to  get rich off his brothers work?  At least Stan's brother is suing for work he actually did.

If a carpenter is paid to build a house and fifty years later the house is worth millions, does the carpenter get to sue or to claim he owns a piece of it?

Only if the carpenter is Barry Windsor Smith.

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 9/27/2021 at 12:49 PM, jaybuck43 said:

Only if the carpenter is Barry Windsor Smith.

Happy Birthday!!!  

 

 

[jaybuck43]

On 9/26/2021 at 12:02 AM, HotKey said:

It is 100% from Disney's consistent efforts over the last 50 years.

https://priceonomics.com/how-mickey-mouse-evades-the-public-domain/

That is such a garbage article lol.  The writer does not understand copyright law AT ALL. (Actual IP Attorney here)  When Mickey Mouse eventually falls into public domain, it's JUST the content that's passed into public domain.  So Steamboat Willy will enter the public Domain, but Mickey Mouse the character becomes a bit more complicated.  You can have a mouse, who is named Mickey Mouse, and basically he has to be a steamboat captain.  You can't use him in any other way that Disney has used him over the years this is still in protected form that is still under copyright protection.  Why?  Because only the portion that is in the public domain is actually in the public domain.  So Mickey singing "M-I-C-K-E-Y...." absolutely cannot be done, because that's from 1955, not from steamboat willy.  Him having a dog?  Not a chance.  And god forbid if you think he should even utter the word "Clubhouse" anywhere near his name.  That's why Netflix had to settle with the Arther Conan Doyle estate last year because of the Enola Holmes movie.  The character of Sherlock Holmes is in public domain, sure, BUT certain character traits he displays ONLY appear in the later books, which are still protected under copyright law.  The screenwriter went too far, and Netflix settled.  

Also, why on earth would Disney spend millions of dollars in lobbying to protect an asset so old they don't even sell it?  It's been available on YouTube for free for over 12 years.  Heck it's a 7 minute short.  Have they EVER sold it?  No.  But sure, blame Disney, they're an easy target, and IP law is complicated and hard.  (It's like the McDonalds coffee case, easy to laugh at, until you know the ACTUAL story behind it, and wonder why she didn't get more money.)  

 

[Artboy99]

On 9/27/2021 at 11:03 AM, shadroch said:

Someone has to explain to me why Ditko's  brother is entitled to  get rich off his brothers work?  At least Stan's brother is suing for work he actually did.

If a carpenter is paid to build a house and fifty years later the house is worth millions, does the carpenter get to sue or to claim he owns a piece of it?

interesting analogy.

Did the carpenter follow an existing blue print or did he also have to come up with the design of the house?

[MetalPSI]

On 9/27/2021 at 12:12 PM, jaybuck43 said:

That is such a garbage article lol.  The writer does not understand copyright law AT ALL. (Actual IP Attorney here)  When Mickey Mouse eventually falls into public domain, it's JUST the content that's passed into public domain.  So Steamboat Willy will enter the public Domain, but Mickey Mouse the character becomes a bit more complicated.  You can have a mouse, who is named Mickey Mouse, and basically he has to be a steamboat captain.  You can't use him in any other way that Disney has used him over the years this is still in protected form that is still under copyright protection.  Why?  Because only the portion that is in the public domain is actually in the public domain.  So Mickey singing "M-I-C-K-E-Y...." absolutely cannot be done, because that's from 1955, not from steamboat willy.  Him having a dog?  Not a chance.  And god forbid if you think he should even utter the word "Clubhouse" anywhere near his name.  That's why Netflix had to settle with the Arther Conan Doyle estate last year because of the Enola Holmes movie.  The character of Sherlock Holmes is in public domain, sure, BUT certain character traits he displays ONLY appear in the later books, which are still protected under copyright law.  The screenwriter went too far, and Netflix settled.  

Also, why on earth would Disney spend millions of dollars in lobbying to protect an asset so old they don't even sell it?  It's been available on YouTube for free for over 12 years.  Heck it's a 7 minute short.  Have they EVER sold it?  No.  But sure, blame Disney, they're an easy target, and IP law is complicated and hard.  (It's like the McDonalds coffee case, easy to laugh at, until you know the ACTUAL story behind it, and wonder why she didn't get more money.)  

 

What's the actual story behind McDonald's coffee?

[shadroch]

On 9/27/2021 at 11:13 AM, Artboy99 said:

interesting analogy.

Did the carpenter follow an existing blue print or did he also have to come up with the design of the house?

Would it matter?

Would either of them have a claim? 

[alexgross.com]

On 9/27/2021 at 11:34 AM, shadroch said:

Would it matter?

Would either of them have a claim? 

i guess in this analogy, the question is, if someone was paid to be a carpenter, and his contract stated or implied that he was being paid for his work for hire as a carpenter, but he actually co-designed or fully designed the house, is that grounds for a legal claim?

[comicwiz]

 

[shadroch]

On 9/27/2021 at 12:16 PM, alexgross.com said:

i guess in this analogy, the question is, if someone was paid to be a carpenter, and his contract stated or implied that he was being paid for his work for hire as a carpenter, but he actually co-designed or fully designed the house, is that grounds for a legal claim?

Suppose I hire someone to build a house. I offer them $100 a day and they accept it.  They build it from scratch and happily accept their paycheck.  The house is great and I sell it to someone who forty years later sells it to you, for many times what the house was worth when they finished it.  Years go by and their grandchildren pass the beautiful house their grand dad built. Finally, one of them knocks on your door and explains since their granddaddy built this house while working for someone else, it is only right that you give them a part of your house.

Does anyone think Babe Ruth's great grandchildren should be given part of the Yankees?  He performed work for hire and suffered under labor rules that put Marvels to shame. Kirby and Ditko were free to work for anyone they chose. Ruth either played for the Yankees or he didn't play. As a ballplayer, he was considered to be the property of the NY Yankees. 

[MetalPSI]

On 9/27/2021 at 1:32 PM, comicwiz said:

 

Sad

Only reinforces my view on corporate life

[Axelrod]

On 9/27/2021 at 2:12 PM, jaybuck43 said:

That is such a garbage article lol.  The writer does not understand copyright law AT ALL. (Actual IP Attorney here)  When Mickey Mouse eventually falls into public domain, it's JUST the content that's passed into public domain.  So Steamboat Willy will enter the public Domain, but Mickey Mouse the character becomes a bit more complicated.  You can have a mouse, who is named Mickey Mouse, and basically he has to be a steamboat captain.  You can't use him in any other way that Disney has used him over the years this is still in protected form that is still under copyright protection.  Why?  Because only the portion that is in the public domain is actually in the public domain.  So Mickey singing "M-I-C-K-E-Y...." absolutely cannot be done, because that's from 1955, not from steamboat willy.  Him having a dog?  Not a chance.  And god forbid if you think he should even utter the word "Clubhouse" anywhere near his name.  That's why Netflix had to settle with the Arther Conan Doyle estate last year because of the Enola Holmes movie.  The character of Sherlock Holmes is in public domain, sure, BUT certain character traits he displays ONLY appear in the later books, which are still protected under copyright law.  The screenwriter went too far, and Netflix settled.  

Also, why on earth would Disney spend millions of dollars in lobbying to protect an asset so old they don't even sell it?  It's been available on YouTube for free for over 12 years.  Heck it's a 7 minute short.  Have they EVER sold it?  No.  But sure, blame Disney, they're an easy target, and IP law is complicated and hard.  (It's like the McDonalds coffee case, easy to laugh at, until you know the ACTUAL story behind it, and wonder why she didn't get more money.)  

 

I mean, are you suggesting that Disney hasn't been trying to change the copyright laws for decades (and succeeding) to lengthen the period of copyright protection?  Because I rather think they have. 

And sure, it's absolutely true that Disney will still sue the ever-living hell out of anyone who tries to use Mickey Mouse for anything, even after the copyright has expired, using the exact same kind of rationale that the Holmes estate did.  Whether or not the rationale will have any merit or not is almost completely besides the point.  Most people don't have the legal resources to fight.  And even those that do (Netflix, eg.) often decide it's still more cost effective to just pay than go to court.    

More on topic, I'm sympathetic, to some extent, to the heirs of creators who pretty much got the shaft during their lifetimes from the big corporations, but I'm less sympathetic than I would be if it was the creators themselves who were involved.  And as is often the case, there's probably a large gulf between what the "right" thing to do is, vs. what the "legal" or required thing is.  

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

On 9/27/2021 at 1:12 PM, jaybuck43 said:

That is such a garbage article lol.  The writer does not understand copyright law AT ALL. (Actual IP Attorney here)  When Mickey Mouse eventually falls into public domain, it's JUST the content that's passed into public domain.  So Steamboat Willy will enter the public Domain, but Mickey Mouse the character becomes a bit more complicated.  You can have a mouse, who is named Mickey Mouse, and basically he has to be a steamboat captain.  You can't use him in any other way that Disney has used him over the years this is still in protected form that is still under copyright protection.  Why?  Because only the portion that is in the public domain is actually in the public domain.  So Mickey singing "M-I-C-K-E-Y...." absolutely cannot be done, because that's from 1955, not from steamboat willy.  Him having a dog?  Not a chance.  And god forbid if you think he should even utter the word "Clubhouse" anywhere near his name.  That's why Netflix had to settle with the Arther Conan Doyle estate last year because of the Enola Holmes movie.  The character of Sherlock Holmes is in public domain, sure, BUT certain character traits he displays ONLY appear in the later books, which are still protected under copyright law.  The screenwriter went too far, and Netflix settled.  

Also, why on earth would Disney spend millions of dollars in lobbying to protect an asset so old they don't even sell it?  It's been available on YouTube for free for over 12 years.  Heck it's a 7 minute short.  Have they EVER sold it?  No.  But sure, blame Disney, they're an easy target, and IP law is complicated and hard.  (It's like the McDonalds coffee case, easy to laugh at, until you know the ACTUAL story behind it, and wonder why she didn't get more money.)  

 

OK, I hear you.  Still seems wrong