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

[jaybuck43]

On 9/27/2021 at 3:32 PM, comicwiz said:

 

Never seen that before, but a pretty damn good explainer of what happened.  Thanks for posting that.

[jaybuck43]

On 9/27/2021 at 4:26 PM, Axelrod said:

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.  

I mean has Disney ever been in a meeting with a Congressman/Senator and asked for an increase in copyright protection?  Sure.  But no they did not engage in a multi million dollar campaign the way that people envision (hell, Disney wasn't even that big of a money making organization to afford something like that.)  So going back to 1909, Copyright lasts for 56 years (28 years with a 28 year extension.)  That's it.  So you could lose Copyright even while you're still alive.  Meanwhile in Europe, there is this cool agreement called the Berne Convention, which required all member states to provide Life + 50 as the minimum for Copyright or 75 years for corporate authorship.  In 1976, while not a party to the Berne Convention, the US adopted a similar agreement, because as the US was becoming a global power regarding IP, the value of Copyright was becoming more important, so they wanted strong reciprocal agreements with European countries.  So in 1989 the US actually became a signatory to the Berne Convention, and while the '76 rule was fine because it met the minimum, it was far behind what Europe was doing.  In 1993 the EU put out a directive to its member nations and aimed to harmonize copyright.  (Berne Convention set a floor of Life+ 50 or 75, but any signatory could go above and beyond that)  So in order to bring harmony in the EU, they issued a directive requiring all states to be Life + 70 or 125 years.  After Europe increased this amount, the US felt it needed to match (having non-reciprocal terms is never a good thing when negotiating)  So 12 congressmen proposed a bill to match Europe.  And.... then Sonny Bono (one of those 12) skied into a tree and died.  So Congress pushed through the bill and copyright was changed.  And... that's it. (also if you think it was hugely pro-business, the EU change revived public domain copyrights, so in countries like France which changed from 50 to 70 years, suddenly anything that slipped into the public domain in the previous 19 years were back to being copyrighted, in the US they stayed in the public domain).

[Aman619]

what about the Sonny Bono extension?

[fastballspecial]

On 9/27/2021 at 12:03 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?

Yes descendants No siblings.

 

[Mr bla bla]

On 9/25/2021 at 2:25 AM, Aman619 said:

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.

 

The Ditko heirs can really, really hurt Disney by dragging them through a long judicial process exposed and covered in the public press. 

[MetalPSI]

On 9/28/2021 at 8:23 AM, Mr bla bla said:

The Ditko heirs can really, really hurt Disney by dragging them through a long judicial process exposed and covered in the public press. 

Didn't hurt Walmart, or any other 50billion a year profit corporation 

[comicwiz]

On 9/28/2021 at 10:23 AM, Mr bla bla said:

The Ditko heirs can really, really hurt Disney by dragging them through a long judicial process exposed and covered in the public press. 

During his lifetime, particularly in his later years, Ditko seemingly shrugged off and appeared to not care to even touch on his days with Marvel. He didn't even attempt to try to sell off his art, preferring to allegedly use it as "cutting boards." I have a letter I wrote him where he pretty much told me he long moved on and didn't care to discuss his involvement with characters like Spider-Man. As far as a protracted legal battle potentially leaving Disney with a reputation shiner, the historical pattern is that long legal battles usually favour Disney. These two fact patterns combined, I think if the heirs pushed it, they might find their success rate to settle may diminish greatly if it goes on too long.

Edited September 28, 2021 by comicwiz

[mr_highgrade]

On 9/28/2021 at 10:56 AM, comicwiz said:

During his lifetime, particularly in his later years, Ditko seemingly shrugged off and appeared to not care to even touch on his days with Marvel. He didn't even attempt to try to sell off his art, preferring to allegedly use it as "cutting boards." I have a letter I wrote him where he pretty much told me he long moved on and didn't care to discuss his involvement with characters like Spider-Man. As far as a protracted legal battle potentially leaving Disney with a reputation shiner, the historical pattern is that long legal battles usually favour Disney. These two fact patterns combined, I think if the heirs pushed it, they might find their success rate to settle may diminish greatly if it goes on too long.

I personally spoke to Ditko at least four different times at his office in Manhattan and he basically told me the same thing when it came to Spider-man.

[jjonahjameson11]

On 9/28/2021 at 10:23 AM, Mr bla bla said:

The Ditko heirs can really, really hurt Disney by dragging them through a long judicial process exposed and covered in the public press. 

Not a chance

[shadroch]

Ditko has no heirs. He never married and has no children. 

Out of curiousity, do the people who think Disney owes people something because their parents did work for a company Disney took over feel the same about reparations for people whose great grandparents built much of this country while working under even worse conditions than Kirby and Ditko were employed?

[bluechip]

On 9/24/2021 at 12:51 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...

It will be interesting to see what legal position Ditko's heirs take, considering how vocal Ditko was about insisting he had worked for hire.  There was talk that Ditko had been verbally promised something from merchandising and the TV series, and that it played a part in his departure when he was paid nothing from the MMMS money.  But that is, so far as I know, undocumented, and DItko said many times over the years that he was paid and Marvel owed him nothing, which was and is a core belief among Ayn Randians.   

[jaybuck43]

On 9/28/2021 at 1:05 PM, shadroch said:

Ditko has no heirs. He never married and has no children. 

Out of curiousity, do the people who think Disney owes people something because their parents did work for a company Disney took over feel the same about reparations for people whose great grandparents built much of this country while working under even worse conditions than Kirby and Ditko were employed?

Ditko has heirs.  The term heirs refers to those who have a legal right to your property following your death.  If you leave money to the ASPCA, the ASPCA is your heir.  Even if Ditko died with no will, his living relatives would be his heirs, first parents if still alive, then siblings, then cousins etc. etc. going back. See Prince.  

[shadroch]

Yes, I meant he had no descendants. 

[Bird]

On 9/28/2021 at 10:56 AM, comicwiz said:

allegedly use it as "cutting boards."

this story is apocryphal...very dubious and likely just plain wrong

 

[comicwiz]

On 9/28/2021 at 3:52 PM, Bird said:

this story is apocryphal...very dubious and likely just plain wrong

 

I linked the quote below to the NYPost article from which it was sourced:

Edited September 28, 2021 by comicwiz

[catman76]

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.)  

 

Of course you are a lawyer, only a lawyer would defend Disney. None of these companies or anyone period should still have the rights to any of these characters. They are all 60 or more years old and the creators are all long dead so they should all be in the public domain. Stop buying stuff from Disney and all these evil corporations that just keep having laws changed so they can keep ownership of things they had no hand in creating.

Also Disney has sold Steamboat Willie so what are you talking about? I own multiple copies of it on vhs and dvd and the ones online are cra-p quality

Edited September 28, 2021 by catman76

[shadroch]

I'm not a lawyer, and see no reason why any of these folks are entitled to anything. It's nice that the companies do so, but they are under no obligation. Comic book artists were treated no different than millions of other Americans who worked long hours at lousy jobs while the owners of the company got rich.  

[Bird]

On 9/28/2021 at 4:34 PM, comicwiz said:

I linked the quote below to the NYPost article from which it was sourced:

there are follow up stories where Theakston talks about only seeing one piece and it was the backside of a page, and not identifiable, it was just bristol or whatever so it is assumed it was published art on the other side. It was speculated Ditko was misleading Theakston, prank may not be the correct word but that it was a conscious misdirection

[jaybuck43]

On 9/28/2021 at 4:34 PM, comicwiz said:

I linked the quote below to the NYPost article from which it was sourced:

Hey Joe. Yea that story has been circulating in one form or another for about 20 or so years. But as bird said, it’s almost surely not true. The first form I remember seeing it in was a wizard interview with theakstone where he said he saw a slashed up board that had been a 1950s journey into mystery page (it turned out to be a Charleton page not a Jim page) and that sitting under a tarp or something was a stack of Spider-Man art.  He wasn’t actually using the board to cut on rather theakstone assumed it because of the condition of the one “JIM” page (some have assumed that it could have been the condition it came back from charleton and ditko never used it as a cutting board.)  this story has been retold numerous times in various forms, which makes me think it’s not true.

[shadroch]

Did Ditko get his art back?