Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 101
  1. #76
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
    I quoted and linked this article already in a post on the first page of this discussion
    I’m sorry I did not take note of that.

  2. #77
    Extraordinary Member Gaastra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,324

    Default

    Uh-oh.

    https://www.slashfilm.com/620359/fri...el-and-beyond/

    Disney going through this with predator right now as well.

  3. #78
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaastra View Post
    Uh-oh.

    https://www.slashfilm.com/620359/fri...el-and-beyond/

    Disney going through this with predator right now as well.
    The Ditko Estate can highball their settlement asking price and their actual compromise sum moved a needle higher.

  4. #79
    Uncanny Member Digifiend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugiwara View Post
    Back when Disney wasn't allowed to use Fake Mil... I mean Peter in their movies, I wanted them to have Arana as their resident spider teenage hero.
    Still pissed it didn't go that way.
    They weren't allowed to use her either. Jessica Drew was unconnected to Spider-Man outside the name (and counted as an Avengers character), and I think could be used if they didn't call her Spider-Woman. They couldn't use any of the other Spider characters. Not even newer creations like Anya and Silk.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaastra View Post
    Uh-oh.

    https://www.slashfilm.com/620359/fri...el-and-beyond/

    Disney going through this with predator right now as well.
    Yeah, a Marvel comic based on Predator was indefinitely delayed because of it.
    Appreciation Thread Indexes
    Marvel | Spider-Man | X-Men | NEW!! DC Comics | Batman | Superman | Wonder Woman

  5. #80
    All-New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaastra View Post
    Uh-oh.

    https://www.slashfilm.com/620359/fri...el-and-beyond/

    Disney going through this with predator right now as well.
    I'm not sure a report that claims Stan Lee's estate is claiming is the best source. This has appeared in a few reports but seems to be based on nothing more than the writer not being aware that Larry Lieber is a writer & artist in his own right and filing in that capacity.

    If the report is correct then Friday 13th is a post 1978 work but the significance of that is not noted. That's critical because the 1976 Act nailed down the problem of commissioned works by requiring them to only be work for hire if both parties agreed in writing beforehand. In the absence of such an agreement the script would only be work for hire if the author was writing as a salaried employee - and the case has hinged around that definition.

    Pre 1978 commissioned works are a different affair as there wasn't a requirement to nail down work for hire status in writing and instead it usually comes down to the "instance and expense" test. So this case doesn't tell us anything about how the courts will rule on copyrights created under the 1909 Act.

  6. #81
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,411

    Default

    You can't just steal work for hire characters. How many times has this been done and failed now?

  7. #82
    Latverian ambassador Iron Maiden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Latverian Embassy
    Posts
    20,624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timrollpickering View Post
    I'm not sure a report that claims Stan Lee's estate is claiming is the best source. This has appeared in a few reports but seems to be based on nothing more than the writer not being aware that Larry Lieber is a writer & artist in his own right and filing in that capacity.

    If the report is correct then Friday 13th is a post 1978 work but the significance of that is not noted. That's critical because the 1976 Act nailed down the problem of commissioned works by requiring them to only be work for hire if both parties agreed in writing beforehand. In the absence of such an agreement the script would only be work for hire if the author was writing as a salaried employee - and the case has hinged around that definition.

    Pre 1978 commissioned works are a different affair as there wasn't a requirement to nail down work for hire status in writing and instead it usually comes down to the "instance and expense" test. So this case doesn't tell us anything about how the courts will rule on copyrights created under the 1909 Act.

    They could also could be confusing things with a case from 2020 brought by Stan Lee's daughter Joan Lee after this death. Stan Lee’s Daughter, Lawyers Hit With $1 Million Sanction Over ‘Baseless’ Suit Her claims was not tied to any of his work at Marvel.

    After Marvel fired Lee during its bankruptcy in 1998, he formed Stan Lee Entertainment and hired Gill Champion and Arthur Lieberman to help him run the company.

    In her lawsuit, filed in the Central District of California, Joan Celia Lee said Champion and Lieberman’s company POW! Entertainment — which marketed her father’s works — misappropriated Stan Lee’s image and misled him into believing he owned his name and likeness rights.

    The company aimed to “loot the assets” of Lee by purposefully engineering Stan Lee Entertainment’s collapse and entangling the comic book legend in a lopsided 1998 contract that transferred intellectual property rights to its successor SLM, short for Stan Lee Media Inc., the lawsuit said.

    The conflict at the center of the lawsuit has been litigated at least five other times but Joan Celia Lee said in her lawsuit she had standing to bring her claims since she was not a party to those matters.
    Last edited by Iron Maiden; 10-01-2021 at 01:44 PM.

  8. #83
    Astonishing Member Anthony W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,830

    Default

    There was a time when I would have really cared about this case but I don't now. To the people who do care about this. What would you like to see happen?
    "The Marvel EIC Chair has a certain curse that goes along with it: it tends to drive people insane, and ultimately, out of the business altogether. It is the notorious last stop for many staffers, as once you've sat in The Big Chair, your pariah status is usually locked in." Christopher Priest

  9. #84
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony W View Post
    There was a time when I would have really cared about this case but I don't now. To the people who do care about this. What would you like to see happen?
    Why does that even matter?

    This isn't a vote your outcome thing.

  10. #85
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony W View Post
    There was a time when I would have really cared about this case but I don't now. To the people who do care about this. What would you like to see happen?
    I’d like to see Marvel-Disney reach a fair and generous settlement with the writers, artists, and their estates. Questions of ownership get dicey with the early artists like Ditko and Kirby. I’ve never seen or read that they actually assigned their rights or agreed to Work For Hire, excepting Kirby selling his Cap rights in the ‘60s for a loan from Marvel and Martin Goodman.

    From what I can see, the only industry practice was to maximize profit at the artists’ expense. Some of these characters, like Dr. Strange, don’t seem like it was anything but a creation Ditko brought to Marvel, which nearly by definition can NOT be Work For Hire.

    Marvel doesn’t seem to have any business documents concurrent with the creations showing the early Marvel “Bullpen” signed away rights. Kirby made no secret of what he thought of Marvel and he had grievances, specifically that Marvel and Goodman didn’t hold up their side of whatever deal Kirby thought he made.

    Part of the intent of the copyright extension was in fact to give artists of all kinds another chance to make money off of a creation. By the spirit of the law, the artists or estates are trying to do exactly that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Why does that even matter?

    This isn't a vote your outcome thing.
    You’re right. It is a matter for the law to decide, not votes. I am choosing to show support for the artists anyway, because we all know that early Marvel didn’t deal quite so fairly with its creators, particularly the early ones.

  11. #86
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    I did a post on the entire Spider-Man Creation Saga. Bringing together all the known and knowable facts and drawing my own personal subjective conclusions.

    It also has my proposal on what the ideal scenario for credits should read. If people wish to know why Ditko's claim to creating Spider-Man is so strong they can maybe find time to check it out here:
    https://elvingsmusings.wordpress.com...reated-spidey/

  12. #87
    Latverian ambassador Iron Maiden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Latverian Embassy
    Posts
    20,624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian B View Post
    I’d like to see Marvel-Disney reach a fair and generous settlement with the writers, artists, and their estates. Questions of ownership get dicey with the early artists like Ditko and Kirby. I’ve never seen or read that they actually assigned their rights or agreed to Work For Hire, excepting Kirby selling his Cap rights in the ‘60s for a loan from Marvel and Martin Goodman.

    From what I can see, the only industry practice was to maximize profit at the artists’ expense. Some of these characters, like Dr. Strange, don’t seem like it was anything but a creation Ditko brought to Marvel, which nearly by definition can NOT be Work For Hire.

    Marvel doesn’t seem to have any business documents concurrent with the creations showing the early Marvel “Bullpen” signed away rights. Kirby made no secret of what he thought of Marvel and he had grievances, specifically that Marvel and Goodman didn’t hold up their side of whatever deal Kirby thought he made.

    Part of the intent of the copyright extension was in fact to give artists of all kinds another chance to make money off of a creation. By the spirit of the law, the artists or estates are trying to do exactly that.


    You’re right. It is a matter for the law to decide, not votes. I am choosing to show support for the artists anyway, because we all know that early Marvel didn’t deal quite so fairly with its creators, particularly the early ones.

    Not just early Marvel....it was just the way things were done. Comics were considered the bottom rung in those days. Kirby aspired to do a comic strip because the pay is better and the artist/creator does get a percentage. Hal Foster was allowed to keep ownership of this Prince Valiant strip by Hearst so he made a good income from that.

    Even when Jack kirby did work on a newspaper strip for for DC called Sky Commanders, things didn't go very well and he had made an enemy of an important DC exec. This is why he ended up at Marvel. Kirby was allegedly blacklisted at DC until that executive retired. This is what made his move from Marvel easier.

    The Jack Kirby Collector has a piece on the law suit involving Kirby & Jack Schiff (who charged Kirby with breach of contract) here. It looks to me like the case of Kirby is complicated by Kirby not being a very good witness. Not many transcripts exist of the case.

    BTW, I've bought a number of issues of the years and it's worth getting if you a fan. TwoMorrows has other interesting publications too.
    Last edited by Iron Maiden; 10-20-2021 at 10:44 PM.

  13. #88
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
    Not just early Marvel....it was just the way things were done. Comics were considered the bottom rung in those days. Kirby aspired to do a comic strip because the pay is better and the artist/creator does get a percentage. Hal Foster was allowed to keep ownership of this Prince Valiant strip by Hearst so he made a good income of of that.

    Even when Jack kirby did work on a newspaper strip for for DC called Sky Commanders, things didn't go very well s of that era and he had made an enemy of an important DC exec. This is why he ended up at Marvel. Kirby was allegedly blacklisted at DC until that executive retired. This is what made his move from Marvel easier.

    The Jack Kirby Collector has a piece on the law suit involving Kirby & Jack Schiff (who charged Kirby with breach of contract) here. I looks to me like the case of Kirby is complicated by Kirby not being a very good witness. Not many transcripts exist of the case.

    BTW, I've bought a number of issues of the years and it's worth getting if you a fan. TwoMorrows has other interesting publications too.
    Thanks for the link to the Schiff-Kirby story. I will definitely read it.

    When you read about the business practices, it was clearly just so rotten. Agreed, Marvel was not the only offender. Siegel and Shuster are cautionary tales, as is poor Bill Finger. Marvel is not the only company to play so footloose with rights, though occasionally it seems like some at DC got better deals and credit. Obviously, for Superman’s creators and one of Batman’s, it was not a better deal.

    It’s bitterly funny and instructive that Kirby went out to Hollywood for a fairer deal than what comics offered him.

    This is why I hope these Marvel creators get some just compensation, finally.

    I own a few TwoMorrows publications. Most are pretty good! I think I had a subscription of some kind to Comic Artist a long-time back.
    Last edited by Brian B; 10-09-2021 at 11:23 AM.

  14. #89
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    I did a post on the entire Spider-Man Creation Saga. Bringing together all the known and knowable facts and drawing my own personal subjective conclusions.

    It also has my proposal on what the ideal scenario for credits should read. If people wish to know why Ditko's claim to creating Spider-Man is so strong they can maybe find time to check it out here:
    https://elvingsmusings.wordpress.com...reated-spidey/
    I don’t think what you’ve written is controversial. I don’t think you’re giving Jack Kirby, and Joe Simon, enough credit, though.

    The more that has come out over the decades about Marvel’s creation as a superhero comics company, the more questions are raised about Stan Lee’s role in it all. I think Abraham Riesman’s appraisal, that Stan was an editor and dialogue writer, not the main writer of the plots, is spot on, but I don’t think it was Stan’s primary importance to the company, especially after Cadence bought Marvel. I think Stan’s primary importance to the company was his patently false claims of sole authorship, so Marvel under various owners could maintain the legal fiction that the characters were all Marvel’s uncontested intellectual property. Stan’s value to Marvel was his willingness to participate in thievery. This isn’t too say Stan Lee didn’t contribute to the stories or characterization. I’m just saying he was not the primary creator of Marvel’s characters, not even the co-creator.

    I also think the Kirby-Simon Spiderman is proof that Kirby was pitching characters and concepts much more fleshed out than any “plot” Stan Lee supposedly thought up for any Marvel hero. I think that disproves the whole idea that Kirby and Ditko, and other artists and writers, were doing Work For Hire. If it wasn’t Work For Hire, then Marvel — Stan Lee and Martin Goodman — did not create the characters as part of a corporation. It means that the artists and writers would be legally entitled to terminate those copyrights. I think those artists and writers were very ill advised to not pursue these and other claims against Marvel for decades and decades, given the lack of any known written contract between the artists, writers, and Marvel.

    By the way, unmentioned in your blog post is Kirby insisted that he he also created Spider-Man’s costume, not just the rejected one. Ditko claimed he created it, too. Then there’s the whole Ben Cooper Halloween costume. Clearly one of the artists reused major elements from it, and Ditko was pretty terse and defensive about that. (http://hero-envy.blogspot.com/2012/1...oween.html?m=1) It’s a muddle about who really created that costume, but it sure wasn’t Stan, Goodman or Marvel, not as far as any documentary evidence exists.

    While the continual refinement of the character between Kirby and Ditko seems to show Spider-Man’s creation being directed at the instance of a the publisher — part of the test for Work For Hire — it also shows that large parts of these concepts down to the name existed before Stan or Marvel came along, thus not at the instance of Marvel as it might seem. Kirby and Simon had a character named Spiderman, by all accounts. I don’t see that there was any instance or expense involved with Marvel developing the character. It was all at Kirby’s risk. Again, this is important because it is evidence that Kirby and Ditko’s work was not Work For Hire.

    The real truth is if Marvel had dealt with Kirby, Ditko and the other early Marvel artists and writers fairly, none of this would be an issue.

    Again, I would like to see Marvel-Disney finally do the right thing and come to fair, equitable, and generous settlements between the company and its creators. Jack’s family is finally happy. Why shouldn’t other creators’, their families, and estates finally receive fair compensation, too?
    Last edited by Brian B; 10-09-2021 at 11:24 AM.

  15. #90
    Latverian ambassador Iron Maiden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Latverian Embassy
    Posts
    20,624

    Default

    I think it was because comics book were considered to be the lower if not the lowest rung of the the publication ladder that things tended to be fast and loose. As I said earlier, newspaper syndicates would cut much better deals to artist/writers like Hal Foster, Milton Caniff, Alex Raymond, etc.

    Even when Joe Simon and Jack Kirby had a shop together back in the 1940s they paid artists as work for hire. Then there is another thing to consider. When they got back into the business after WWII and they came back from serving, but in 1955 things took a turn for the worse in the industry when Dr. Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent was published. Superhero comics were lumped in with Wertham's main target, EC comics horror and crime comics. He made no distinction between them and the superhero comics and painted them all corrupting influences. Kirby and Joe Simon's parted ways and Kirby freelanced a bit, had his run in with Jack Schiff at DC and then ended up at Martin Goodman's Marvel Comics. The superhero comics industry was recovering from the damage done Wertham's book. Marvel was still not doing DC level business. That would come later. Probably the only one making good money was Goodman. I have no idea what Stan was making but do know there was a story about Goodman finding out that Stan kept this closet of inventory work done by artists that hadnt been used. Goodman was angered that Stan paid then but hadn't gotten around to using it yet. Goodman ordered him to stop. So they weren't exactly throwing the money around. Most likely Goodman was the one that had the checks printed with the work for hire verbage. He had dealt with Kirby & Simon before over the ownership of Captain America.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian B View Post
    Thanks for the link to the Schiff-Kirby story. I will definitely read it.

    When you read about the business practices, it was clearly just so rotten. Agreed, Marvel was not the only offender. Siegel and Shuster are cautionary tales, as is poor Bill Finger. Marvel is not the only company to play so footloose with rights, though occasionally it seems like some at DC got better deals and credit. Obviously, for Superman’s creators and one of Batman’s, it was not a better deal.

    It’s bitterly funny and instructive that Kirby went out to Hollywood for a fairer deal than what comics offered him.

    This is why I hope these Marvel creators get some just compensation, finally.

    I own a few TwoMorrows publications. Most are pretty good! I think I had a subscription of some kind to Comic Artist of a long-time back.
    Kirby did some really good animation work too. I know they published some of it with the permission of the Kirby heirs in the Jack Kirby Collector. There was some work done on a Fantastic Four cartoon that I don't recall ever seeing. Of course, he did story boards so maybe the animators changed it?? I have no idea how that works.

    I have a few copies of another publication of TwoMorrows called Back Issue where they got together a round table of 21 Fantastic Four writers for an interview via email. Gerry Conway & Alex Ross were interviewed by phone. Even John Byrne contributed and I think thatr is a bit rare for him They were all asked the same question. Too bad they couldn't all be in a room together! This was in issue #7 published in 2014.
    Last edited by Iron Maiden; 10-09-2021 at 05:37 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •