The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **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!

by **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?

by **GHERU** » Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:52 pm

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

by **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.

by **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...

by **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

by **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.

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

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

by **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.

by **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".

by **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.