Sunday, July 24, 2016 • Morning Edition • "The Outhousers of Earth Ugh"

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

Kirby Copyright Case Headed to Supreme Court?

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

LOLtron

Rain Partier

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!
User avatar

GHERU

Rain Partier

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?
User avatar

GHERU

Rain Partier

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

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

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

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

The Old Doctor

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...
User avatar

GHERU

Rain Partier

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
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

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.

The Old Doctor

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

Are you two arguing over at BC as well as here? :roll:
User avatar

Supersoldier Washout

penile prisoner

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.
User avatar

Lord Ice

Motherfucker from Hell

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".
User avatar

MrBlack

WTF is this rank?

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


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Evan Meadow, Fleet Sparrow, MikeinLA and 64 guests