Ditko Estate Lawsuit

[IamnotJudasTraveller]

honestly this will end the same way it always does in these situations. the estate holder get money and the corporation keep the ip. the estate just needs to come off strong so they can get as much possible.

This is my stand as well. There's no way Marvel/Disney would let go off the copyright of one of their flagship character.

Pretty much. I'm absolutely all for the estate to get as much of a share as they can, because it's not like comics copyright laws have turned a new leaf under the big Two and literally everyone is dreamy eyed about their work when it becomes huge, but this isn't Marvel they're dealing with anymore. They're dealing with Marvel owned by Disney.

If Disney hears they need to make first contact to keep these franchises, they'll have a full fledged space program done within a week to go out there find other lifeforms that are likely avoiding us if they are as smart as I hope they are. And it's not like Disney hasn't been successfully lobbying to keep Mickey Mouse's copyright for I believe over a decade now at this point, either.

[primenumber101]

I'm more baffled the fact that something like this is announced when the time NWH is less than three months to hit the theater, which, coincidently, features Spider-man AND Doctor Strange.

Coincidence? Maybe.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I'm more baffled the fact that something like this is announced when the time NWH is less than three months to hit the theater, which, coincidently, features Spider-man AND Doctor Strange.

Coincidence? Maybe.

That upcoming movie probably did play some part in the timing of this, yeah.

It puts public pressure and media embarrassment on Disney/Marvel.

[Mr. NickerNacker]

Mary Jane is from the Ditko run and introduced as the girl Peter should marry. So all that is set up there. She can’t look like Romita but then neither does Zendaya so you might have to reimagine her a bit but it might work.

As for post Ditko rogues: Rhino, Shocker, carnage, venom, hobgoblin, morlun, mr negative, black cat. But the bulk of the rogues are in the Ditko run.

The one big case is does Norman get to be green goblin because Ditko obviously set up Norman to be the goblin but the reveal happened after he left. So that might be a gray area where Norman is a total villain as in the final issues but the goblin mystery might not be his.

Reading the termination for Spider-Man, it states that Patrick Ditko is only seeking the copyright contents of AF #15 - "Spider man! published in amazing Fantasy Vol.1, No. 15". This would only include Spider-Man/ Peter Parker, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, and the burglar. The rest of the Ditko Spidey rogues and supporting cast are not included.

[Spidey_62]

The most depressing thing about all this is seeing all the countless swaths of fans online going up to bat for the corporation afraid they'll lose their popcorn time because a few people "want money."

[HypnoHustler]

Reading the termination for Spider-Man, it states that Patrick Ditko is only seeking the copyright contents of AF #15 - "Spider man! published in amazing Fantasy Vol.1, No. 15". This would only include Spider-Man/ Peter Parker, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, and the burglar. The rest of the Ditko Spidey rogues and supporting cast are not included.

Oh great, so we can have the adventures of the ‘Amazing J Jonah Jameson’ to fill the void left by the main character suddenly being unusable.

[FFJamie94]

Oh great, so we can have the adventures of the ‘Amazing J Jonah Jameson’ to fill the void left by the main character suddenly being unusable.

I doubt Marvel would have to give up Peter Parker. Worst comes to the worst, it’ll be a case of co-ownership where some of the profits go to the Ditko estate.
What needs to happen now is a union for writers where they get a better pay and royalties for any characters they’ve created.

[HypnoHustler]

I doubt Marvel would have to give up Peter Parker. Worst comes to the worst, it’ll be a case of co-ownership where some of the profits go to the Ditko estate.
What needs to happen now is a union for writers where they get a better pay and royalties for any characters they’ve created.

While unlikely, it’s not 100% out of the realm of possibility. You get a Judge who sympathizes with the Ditko estate and it could conceivably happen. Of course then this case would be appealed for years if that occurred. If Disney thought they could lose Spidey they’d argue it all the way up to SCOTUS.

[timrollpickering]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...on-1235020110/

It seems a number of families have filed termination notices including Larry Leiber, brother of Stan. The Creator of Black Widow and Gene Colan’s family. Disney is countersuing as expected but it seems like something big is brewing.

What is brewing is that the window for filing termination notices for early 1960s Marvel is currently open but starting to close up. So creators and their heirs have to file termination notices now or never and Marvel/Disney has to sue to get courts to invalidate the notices.

I posted the below on another thread so I'll put it here as well:

I've seen a lot of discussion on this subject over the years that often doesn't understand the basics of how a) things were not as clear in the early 1960s as subsequent developments would like and b) these cases are based on laws passed after the 1960s. I am not a lawyer but I did do some intellectual property when reading law at a British university and have since read a bit on the US copyright laws as they apply to the various comic cases. So here's my best attempt to explain the basics of the copyright laws and how they apply in this case:

Back in 1962/3 when Spider-Man was created US copyright was governed by the 1909 Copyright Act. The key relevant provisions were as follows:

* Works would be copyrighted for a first period of 28 years from publication.
* At the end of 28 years the work would lapse into the public domain unless the creator renewed the copyright for a second period of 28 years.
** This provision (which goes all the way back to the 1790 Copyright Act) recognised that many creators sign uneven deals early in life and by allowing those who created a successful copyright to reclaim it they could then negotiate a better deal for the second term. However this was undermined by contracts that assigned the renewal rights to the purchaser at the time of creation with the Supreme Court upholding this in, IIRC, 1943. In practice signing over "all rights" at the outset became a default standard.
* The right only applied to the legal creator. In the case of a work made for hire the employer was deemed to be the legal creator and so the writer or artist etc... did not transfer a copyright and did not have a renewal right.
* What constituted a work made for hire was not clearly defined in law. It applied in the case of people employed to create (staff writers etc...) but it was ambiguous as to whether it applied in the case of works specifically commissioned.
** A succession of court rulings applied the "instance and expense" test that generally found commissioned works to be work for hire. But this was also not clear in 1962 - I think the test was defined in 1965.

It is a struggle to see what practical difference there was between a work for hire and an all rights copyright transfer in 1962. Either way the publisher got a copyright & renewal right for a total of 56 years and the creator got paid. And this is key because the contracts from the time often a) weren't in writing and b) didn't clearly anticipate subsequent changes in the law that would make this significant.

Now the same year that Spider-Man was created the US Congress started passing a series of extensions to copyrights designed to keep works in copyright pending a major overhaul of the legislation that would make terms longer and also bring the US law closer to international norms (although it didn't join the Berne Convention until 1988 but some of these changes were essential to allow it to do so; please also note that US intellectual property law changes have often been following international developments as the US moved from its days as a copyright pirate to a net exporter rather than just Congress being concerned about a mouse).

In 1976 a new Copyright Act was passed taking effect from the start of 1978. The key provisions were:

* For works created before 1978 and still in copyright the second term was extended from 28 to 47 years for a total combined period of 75 years.
* Creators who had transferred copyrights or their heirs (narrowly defined to widow/ers, children and grandchildren) were given the right to reclaim the copyright for the new extended period. (After all when they agreed the contract these extra 19 years were not there.)
* This right was inalienable and could only be exercised in a specific window of time. It could not be signed away in earlier contracts or disavowed.
* Work for hire was now defined in law going forward with a requirement for commissioned works to be explicitly agreed to be work for hire in contracts at the time of commissioning.
* But pre 1978 work for hire questions still had to be determined by the court tests.
* (Plus various other provisions about copyright lengths for works created from 1978 onwards but that's not so relevant here.)

In 1992 the requirement to register for the second period was removed with all works from 1964 onwards automatically renewed. Creators and heirs could still file to claim the renewal.

In 1998 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was passed. This:

* Added another 20 years to the period of copyright (just a few years earlier the European Union had made the same extension).
* Allowed creators or heirs to reclaim the copyright for the additional 20 years.
* Relaxed the definition of heirs allowing executors and/or next of kin to file for termination.


So what does all this mean in this case?

1). The same laws that created & extended the lengths of copyrights have provided for them to be reclaimed. All the parties to the case potentially benefit from those laws in different ways.
2). Whatever Steve Ditko believed or said or did in his life about the copyright transfer is irrelevant. His heirs have every legal right to revert copyrights he transferred no matter what his wishes or for that matter just how much he was paid at the time or in subsequent decades.
3). An agreement made in 1962 was made in the (presumed) knowledge of the law in 1962. Not in the knowledge of what the law would become from 1978 onwards (or legally even in the knowledge of what Congressional committees and government offices were talking about in 1962 as they contemplated a possible legal change).
4). The window for when a copyright transfer can be terminated is narrow so it's irrelevant what was said and done in the 1960s through 2000s.
5). A key points in the case will be whether Steve Ditko's work for Marvel done as work for hire or did he create a copyright and transfer it? Only in the latter will there be anything to reclaim.
6). If there is a transfer to be terminated then there is the subsequent question as to how the copyright in a comic is actually divided up between separate collaborators - I'm not sure the copyright laws had comics in mind when they were written.
7). The Ditko Estate has not sued Marvel. Rather they have filed termination notices. Marvel have sued on the grounds that the Ditko Estate does not have the right to make such a claim.


There are a lot of similarities with the Kirby heirs case a few years ago though some of the points of fact may be different (for instance did Ditko get asked to come up with something for Strange Tales and came up with Dr Strange or did he have the idea and pitched it to Marvel with the option of trying elsewhere if it was refused?) but the precedents are strongly on Marvel/Disney's side with all courts that heard the Kirby case ruling for Marvel. A settlement was made just before the Supreme Court would have decided whether or not to take the case. Given the case history it's likely that Marvel or more likely Disney decided settling was the best option but opinion is divided on what the Supreme Court would likely have ruled if it had and thus whether this decision was done because of the legal risk was deemed to great or if it was a political decision given the way the talent unions were signing onto the case.

[FFJamie94]

While unlikely, it’s not 100% out of the realm of possibility. You get a Judge who sympathizes with the Ditko estate and it could conceivably happen. Of course then this case would be appealed for years if that occurred. If Disney thought they could lose Spidey they’d argue it all the way up to SCOTUS.

The issue is that Ditko was co-creator, at least in legal terms. And even then, he was working under contract for a Company. It would seem very unlikely that Marvel would have to give up publishing right for Spider-man, but they will most likely have to come to a settlement with the Ditko estates getting paid royalties. Another issue comes down to just how little information there is from both sides of the case. Any party who could help clarify the situation have all passed and so it’s just word of mouth, which can have issues with bias.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Oh great, so we can have the adventures of the ‘Amazing J Jonah Jameson’ to fill the void left by the main character suddenly being unusable.

Well Marvel owns the Black Costume, they own Ben Reilly. You're a fan of Ben Reilly, so you come out happy either way at the end of this.

Ben Reilly is a tricky character because Gerry Conway created him as a clone but his name and blonde look was developed decades later by Terry Kavanagh and JMD and others. So Marvel can theoretically lay claim to him owing to the collective ownership but then again maybe Conway sues, who knows.

Marvel also owns Miles Morales but it's a dead cert that Bendis sues Marvel if Ditko Estate prevails (to be frank I think he might sue, and should sue in a few years time in any case), so Ben wins because he's unwanted and unvaluable.

[timrollpickering]

Marvel also owns Miles Morales but it's a dead cert that Bendis sues Marvel if Ditko Estate prevails (to be frank I think he might sue, and should sue in a few years time in any case), so Ben wins because he's unwanted and unvaluable.

Miles Morales was created decades later under a much clearer IP regime. Bendis will have signed a standard work for hire contract (the 1976 Act requires WFH by freelancers to be specified in writing before commencement). Also the term of copyright for a corporate authorship was already up to 95 years in 2011 so there is no post-creation extension to claim.

[HypnoHustler]

Well Marvel owns the Black Costume, they own Ben Reilly. You're a fan of Ben Reilly, so you come out happy either way at the end of this.

Ben Reilly is a tricky character because Gerry Conway created him as a clone but his name and blonde look was developed decades later by Terry Kavanagh and JMD and others. So Marvel can theoretically lay claim to him owing to the collective ownership but then again maybe Conway sues, who knows.

Marvel also owns Miles Morales but it's a dead cert that Bendis sues Marvel if Ditko Estate prevails (to be frank I think he might sue, and should sue in a few years time in any case), so Ben wins because he's unwanted and unvaluable.

So every creator who has ever contributed anything to Marvel sues and now nothing is usable or connected, the Marvel universe is dissolved (with DC to follow) and most of these creators will have no interest in continuing with these characters’ stories. Then maybe the artists can sue the writers and everyone turns on everyone in never ending acrimonious lawsuits. Is this logical to you? Why would any company ever hire any creative talent ever again?
In your creator rights utopia, you even have Terry Kavanaugh suing over Ben Reilly’s blonde hair.

Luckily, most creators don’t feel this way. I think Conway is satisfied with his treatment by Marvel over the decades (considering he’s done work as recently as RYV for them) and Marvel launched Bendis into the stratosphere by letting him utilize their flagship characters with his work on DD and Ultimate. And pretty sure all of them signed contracts anyway. But of course, company loyalty means nothing if we can get more $$$$, right?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

So every creator who has ever contributed anything to Marvel sues and now nothing is usable or connected, the Marvel universe is dissolved (with DC to follow) and most of these creators will have no interest in continuing with these characters’ stories.

There are many ways to respond to this, but first and foremost let me say that if the Marvel Shared Universe requires the ongoing exploitation and IP theft, then it probably shouldn't exist, yes.*** It is not acceptable or defensible that exploitation is necessary for success or progress. By this logic, the people who said American democracy would be doomed if it got rid of slavery or gave women the vote, or society would crumble if they allowed LGBTQ marriage, were right all along despite reality proving not only contrary but the complete opposite.

In the individual case of Spider-Man you have a character who for most of his history has been consigned to his corner and hardly had significant connections to the Marvel Shared Universe. In the case of DC, it was never conceived to exist as a shared universe to start with, since Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman were all separate solo heroes originally, and arguably would be better off in its own corner.

Luckily, most creators don’t feel this way. I think Conway is satisfied with his treatment by Marvel over the decades (considering he’s done work as recently as RYV for them)

Being resigned isn't the same as being satisifed. Conway and most comics creators existed in a reality with union busting, scab labor, fan indifference and exploitation. If Conway had to choose a reality between his current situation and an alternative world of unionized labor in comics, royalties extending to serialized ongoing licensed teams and so on...I doubt greatly he would choose the former.

Conway himself has spoken regretfully that when he and others were hired by DC they were happy and a few years in they realized they were fans-turned-professionals hired by management because Gardner Fox and others had tried to unionize and management fired them and realized that fans made perfect scabs and strikebreakers since they were happy to write their favorite characters without asking for pay and depended on an unbalanced power structure for their emerging careers.

But of course, company loyalty means nothing if we can get more $$$$, right?

Jack Kirby and Steve Gerber had a lot to say about company loyalty in their great satire of Cogburn. John Byrne employee of Marvel who came to fame designed Kirby's characters wrote an essay claiming he was proud to be a "company man" and insisted that Marvel creators had no rights whatsoever. So Kirby and Gerber wrote a satire in Destroyer Duck about species called "Cogburns" i.e. cog in the machine and burn because "John Byrne". Cogburns were proud to be part of the company and had flexible spines because they were spineless and also, they had no d--ks.

Cogbyrne Kirby.jpg

*** Let me say that it's possible for a shared universe to exist based on co-operation and mutual aid, as well as personal friendship. HP Lovecraft's Chtulhu stories were used by authors, with his permission and consent in their stories (and they allowed Lovecraft to use stuff from their stories). There are other such examples like Michael Moorcock allowing authors to use part of his concepts. There are many alternatives.

[HypnoHustler]

I find your comparison of this to the abolishment of slavery and legalization of same-sex marriage extremely trivializing, and I feel I have already made all the points I wanted to concerning this case and the slippery slope you seem to be on board with, so I’ll let you have the last word.