ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 13497
Mar 21 10 5:26 PM
ElectricPeterTork wrote:fubarthepanda wrote:sfcityduck wrote:...this case is based on changes in the law that occurred in the mid-70s and the rights at issue have nothing to do with alleged oral promises...Yeah, I think that's the crux of this case, as well as most of the other pre-1976 copyright cases (including the Siegel's). The bottom line is that the modern understanding of "work-for-hire" wasn't codified until the 1976 copyright act, so it's a false assumption to assume that Kirby was somehow operating under black-and-white legal guidelines during the time he co-created most of the Marvel Universe, which is why these cases have merit and should be decided by a court of law instead of a court of opinion. Given Kirby's long-standing beliefs towards creator ownership, I think that it's safe to say that if he were alive today that he'd like to see the lawsuit go forward, so I think the Kirby Estate is acting in accord with his interests. Whether they win or settle is another story, but I don't see any reason why the case shouldn't be heard.Well then, I musk ask (without taking things too personally), was Jack Kirby completely stupid? Did he not realize that what he created would belong to Marvel? If he was ignorant going in, I could understand the case for saying these characters belong with his descendants, but I'd wager he knew that his material would belong to Marvel. Isn't that why he allegedly "held back" on the last couple years of Fantastic Four?I mean, the creators at that time knew that their creations would belong to the companies. Roy Thomas has been quoted many times saying that he would rather rework an existing character than create something new to give to Marvel or DC, because one day, he might see that character on a movie screen, and not see a dime out of it.If "Houseroy" knew this, I find it hard to believe the *ahem* King didn't.
fubarthepanda wrote:sfcityduck wrote:...this case is based on changes in the law that occurred in the mid-70s and the rights at issue have nothing to do with alleged oral promises...Yeah, I think that's the crux of this case, as well as most of the other pre-1976 copyright cases (including the Siegel's). The bottom line is that the modern understanding of "work-for-hire" wasn't codified until the 1976 copyright act, so it's a false assumption to assume that Kirby was somehow operating under black-and-white legal guidelines during the time he co-created most of the Marvel Universe, which is why these cases have merit and should be decided by a court of law instead of a court of opinion. Given Kirby's long-standing beliefs towards creator ownership, I think that it's safe to say that if he were alive today that he'd like to see the lawsuit go forward, so I think the Kirby Estate is acting in accord with his interests. Whether they win or settle is another story, but I don't see any reason why the case shouldn't be heard.
sfcityduck wrote:...this case is based on changes in the law that occurred in the mid-70s and the rights at issue have nothing to do with alleged oral promises...
Share This