Advertisement

Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

Discuss the latest comic book news and front page articles, read or post your own reviews of comics, and talk about anything comic book related. Threads from the two subforums below will also show up here. News Stand topics can also be read and posted in from The Asylum.

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Logged in users see WAY LESS ADS, so why not register? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

LOLtron
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 24629
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 163 posts
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 1:54 pm


Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

Postby LOLtron » Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:34 pm

Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

It's not like the Supreme Court has anything better to do.



Source: Robot 6

Robot 6 is reporting that super-lawyer Marc Toberoff and the Kirby heirs are taking their fight to regain control of most of the Marvel Universe all the way to the top: the United States Supreme Court. The court case has been going on for years, and we all know the story by now. Kirby's heirs claim that Jack Kirby's work prior to 1978 was not work for hire and that the copyright should revert back to them based on provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act. Disney believes that they should own the rights to everything forever based on the fact that they have a shitload of money, which is admittedly congruent with the spirit of American capitalism.

Many believed the case was over last year when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 2011 ruling that Marvel could keep the copyrights because they are a corporation, which are entitled to more rights than people, especially artists. However, those pesky Kirby heirs just won't stop bothering Marvel, so it looks like we may get to see this one go all the way to the top. Of course, if the Kirby heirs were ever to actually win, Disney would simply funnel more money into the campaigns of U.S. Senators and Representatives to get them to rewrite copyright law like they do every time their characters are in danger of entering the public domain.

See the comments section below in about five minutes for sad examples of fanboys defending a corporation's right to own intellectual property for all of eternity because they like to read Spider-Man.



Written or Contributed by Jude Terror




READ THIS ARTICLE ON THE FRONT PAGE, HUMANS!
Image

Advertisement

GHERU
User avatar

YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 38958
Likes: 128 posts
Liked in: 173 posts
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:03 pm
Location: Fucking Akron


Re: Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

Postby GHERU » Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:51 pm

See the comments section below in about five minutes for sad examples of fanboys defending a corporation's right to own intellectual property for all of eternity because they like to read Spider-Man.


didn't the article explicitly say that they dropped their Spider-Man claim?
RUviews
Benderbrau wrote:Welcome to the Outhouse. Where civility means you're doing it wrong.

GHERU
User avatar

YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 38958
Likes: 128 posts
Liked in: 173 posts
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:03 pm
Location: Fucking Akron


Re: Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

Postby GHERU » Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:52 pm

RUviews
Benderbrau wrote:Welcome to the Outhouse. Where civility means you're doing it wrong.

S.F. Jude Terror
User avatar
OMCTO
 
Posts: 75976
Likes: 386 posts
Liked in: 540 posts
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:44 pm
Location: Up Your Ass
Title: Webmaster Supreme
Formerly: Dr. Jude Terror


Re: Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:08 pm

GHERU wrote:didn't the article explicitly say that they dropped their Spider-Man claim?


It wasn't meant to signify that Spider-Man was part of the claim, just to trivialize the arguments of people who disagree with me. :P
Image
I LOVE BLUD BLOOD! - Rob Liefeld

The Old Doctor
User avatar
A Damn Cuddly Beast
 
Posts: 66123
Likes: 576 posts
Liked in: 395 posts
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Toronto, ONT, Canadah
Formerly: /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\


Re: Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

Postby The Old Doctor » Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:11 pm

Do not mess with the Mouse.

What is his, is his. What is yours is his. All hail Mickey. Mickey Mouse. M.O.U.S.E.

Mickey's
Omni
Universal
Strategic
Evil

Pluto was once just like Goofy... then he pissed off Mickey...
"Why are you pointing your screwdrivers like that? They're scientific instruments, not water pistols."
"Oh, the pointing again! They're screwdrivers! What are you going to do? Assemble a cabinet at them?"
"Are you capable of speaking without flapping your hands about?"
""Timey" what? "Timey wimey"?"

Image
IvCNuB4 wrote:The Old Doctor is Cat-Scratch ?
Well that explains a lot :lol:

GHERU
User avatar

YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 38958
Likes: 128 posts
Liked in: 173 posts
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:03 pm
Location: Fucking Akron


Re: Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

Postby GHERU » Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:23 pm

GHERU wrote:nevermind
that was in the BC article
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/04/03/ ... el-rights/

I didn't realize you owned all the stuff you've built for your work
RUviews
Benderbrau wrote:Welcome to the Outhouse. Where civility means you're doing it wrong.

S.F. Jude Terror
User avatar
OMCTO
 
Posts: 75976
Likes: 386 posts
Liked in: 540 posts
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:44 pm
Location: Up Your Ass
Title: Webmaster Supreme
Formerly: Dr. Jude Terror


Re: Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:37 pm

GHERU wrote:I didn't realize you owned all the stuff you've built for your work


No, because it's open source.

However, if I worked for a company that would own my creative work, we would have to have a explicit work for hire agreement as defined by copyright law.
Image
I LOVE BLUD BLOOD! - Rob Liefeld

The Old Doctor
User avatar
A Damn Cuddly Beast
 
Posts: 66123
Likes: 576 posts
Liked in: 395 posts
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Toronto, ONT, Canadah
Formerly: /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\


Re: Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

Postby The Old Doctor » Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:17 pm

Are you two arguing over at BC as well as here? :roll:
"Why are you pointing your screwdrivers like that? They're scientific instruments, not water pistols."
"Oh, the pointing again! They're screwdrivers! What are you going to do? Assemble a cabinet at them?"
"Are you capable of speaking without flapping your hands about?"
""Timey" what? "Timey wimey"?"

Image
IvCNuB4 wrote:The Old Doctor is Cat-Scratch ?
Well that explains a lot :lol:

Supersoldier Washout
User avatar
Garbage Collector
 
Posts: 796
Likes: 209 posts
Liked in: 148 posts
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:58 am
Location: I can't really say. I'm currently what they call "AWOL" from S.H.I.E.L.D.
Title: Will Fight for Beer


Online


Re: Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

Postby Supersoldier Washout » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:26 am

It's not like the Supreme Court has been deciding against corporations lately.

But I admit to not following this very closely and know nothing of Kirby's agreement with Marvel.

Lord Ice
User avatar
Motherfucker from Hell
 
Posts: 2646
Likes: 21 posts
Liked in: 70 posts
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:45 pm


Online


Re: Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

Postby Lord Ice » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:57 am

The Old Doctor wrote:Pluto was once just like Goofy... then he pissed off Mickey...


Pissed him off so badly, the planet Pluto got kicked out of planet "status".
Image
Image
Image

MrBlack
User avatar
WTF is this rank?
 
Posts: 11214
Likes: 20 posts
Liked in: 48 posts
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:03 am


Re: Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

Postby MrBlack » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:25 pm

From what little I know of this, it appears that the case rests on a challenge to the Second Circuit's application of the "instance and expense" test, specifically to their own interpretation of that test, which goes back to a 1972 decision. Given how long this interpretation has been on the books, it seems unlikely to me that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari, but then, I am not an entertainment lawyer or much of an expert on the Supreme Court.

leave a comment with facebook


Return to The News Stand



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClockKing1986, sdsichero and 133 guests

Advertisement