Showing posts with label Disney corporation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disney corporation. Show all posts

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Disney joins Marvel in copyright fight with Kirby family; ComicBookResources.com, 5/27/10

Kevin Melrose, ComicBookResources.com; Disney joins Marvel in copyright fight with Kirby family:

"The Walt Disney Co. has waded into the legal battle over many of Marvel's best-known characters, filing a memo in support of the publisher's efforts to dismiss copyright claims by the heirs of Jack Kirby.

Marvel sued the Kirby children in January, seeking to invalidate notices sent almost four months earlier to terminate copyrights to such characters as the Avengers, the Fantastic Four, Thor, the Incredible Hulk, the X-Men, Iron Man and Spider-Man. The Kirby family responded in March by suing Marvel and its new parent company Disney.

In the Disney memo, filed on Monday, the media giant asks the court to delay to delay ordering an accounting of profits from the properties Kirby created or co-created, arguing that the copyright claims of his heirs haven't been validated. Disney also seeks to dismiss the Kirby family's claims about unreturned original artwork and lack of credit in The Incredible Hulk and X-Men Origins: Wolverine films.

You can read the full complaint at THR, Esq."

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/05/disney-joins-marvel-in-copyright-fight-with-kirby-family/

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Marvel sues to keep Spider-Man, X-Men copyrights; Associated Press, 1/9/10

Associated Press, via Yahoo; Marvel sues to keep Spider-Man, X-Men copyrights:

"The home of superheroes including Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four and the X-Men sued one of its most successful artists Friday to retain the rights to the lucrative characters.

The federal lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan by Marvel Worldwide Inc. asks a judge to invalidate 45 notices sent by the heirs of artist Jack Kirby to try to terminate Marvel's copyrights, effective on dates ranging from 2014 through 2019.

The heirs notified several companies last year that the rights to the characters would revert from Marvel to Kirby's estate.

The lawsuit said Kirby's work on the comics published between 1958 and 1963 were "for hire" and render the heirs' claims invalid. The famed artist died in 1994.

The lawsuit was dismissed by Kirby's attorney Marc Toberoff, who issued a statement saying the heirs were merely trying to take advantage of change to copyright law that allows artists to recapture rights to their work.

"It is a standard claim predictably made by comic book companies to deprive artists, writers, and other talent of all rights in their work," the statement said of Marvel's lawsuit.

"The Kirby children intend to vigorously defend against Marvel's claims in the hope of finally vindicating their father's work."

The statement claimed Kirby was never properly compensated for his contributions to Marvel's universe of superheroes.

"Sadly, Jack died without proper compensation, credit or recognition for his lasting creative contributions," the statement said.

Comic book characters such as Spider-Man and the X-Men have become some of Hollywood's most bankable properties in recent years.

The lawsuit said the comic book titles in the notices to which Kirby claims to have contributed include "Amazing Adventures," "Amazing Fantasy," "Amazing Spider-Man," "The Avengers," the "Fantastic Four," "Fantastic Four Annual," "The Incredible Hulk," "Journey into Mystery," "Rawhide Kid," "Sgt. Fury and His Howling Commandos," "Strange Tales," "Tales to Astonish," "Tales of Suspense" and "The X-Men."

John Turitzin, a Marvel lawyer, said in a statement that the heirs were trying "to rewrite the history of Kirby's relationship with Marvel."

He added: "Everything about Kirby's relationship with Marvel shows that his contributions were works made for hire and that all the copyright interests in them belong to Marvel.

Marvel Entertainment, a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Co., sought a judge's order that the Kirby notices have no effect."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_en_ot/us_marvel_kirby_lawsuit

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Confirmed: Jack Kirby's heirs want a piece of Spider-Man; Comic Book Resources, 9/22/09

Kevin Melrose, Comic Book Resources; Confirmed: Jack Kirby's heirs want a piece of Spider-Man:

"According to the Heat Vision report, Kirby's heirs seek to recapture a share of the copyright to characters and story elements that appeared in Amazing Fantasy #15 -- Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Flash Thompson, etc. -- plus characters and concepts like J. Jonah Jameson, the Daily Bugle, Chameleon, the Tinkerer and the Lizard, most of which debuted months later in issues of The Amazing Spider-Man. (The Daily Bugle first appeared in Fantastic Four #2.)

If the Kirby children are successful, they would reclaim their father's portion of the copyright to key characters and concepts from the Marvel Universe as early as 2017 for the Fantastic Four. In most cases, that would seem to mean co-ownership with Marvel, as Lee agreed to waive claim to any of the characters. With Spider-Man, one-third ownership could be possible if the Kirbys were to prevail yet the judge recognized Ditko's interests."

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/09/confirmed-jack-kirbys-heirs-want-a-piece-of-Spider-Man/

Monday, September 21, 2009

Disney Faces Rights Issues Over Marvel; New York Times, 9/21/09

Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes, New York Times; Disney Faces Rights Issues Over Marvel:

"Walt Disney’s proposed $4 billion acquisition of Marvel Entertainment may come with a headache: newly filed claims challenging Marvel’s long-term rights to some of its superhero characters.

Heirs to the comic book artist Jack Kirby, a creator of characters and stories behind Marvel mainstays like “X-Men” and “Fantastic Four,” last week sent 45 notices of copyright termination to Marvel and Disney, as well as Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures, and other companies that have been using the characters.

The notices expressed an intent to regain copyrights to some of Mr. Kirby’s creations as early as 2014, according to a statement disclosed on Sunday by Toberoff & Associates, a law firm in Los Angeles that helped win a court ruling last year returning a share of the copyright in Superman to heirs of one of the character’s creators, Jerome Siegel."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/business/21marvel.html?scp=1&sq=marvel&st=cse

Monday, June 29, 2009

Should There Be A Penalty For Falsely Claiming Copyright Over Public Domain Material?; TechDirt, 6/26/09

Mike Masnick via TechDirt; Should There Be A Penalty For Falsely Claiming Copyright Over Public Domain Material?:

"Slashdot and The Register point us to a new paper by Jason Mazzone about "copyfraud" -- or the ability of someone to claim copyright on something that is in the public domain. The issue, Mazzone points out, is that there's no penalty for falsely claiming copyright on something, so there's plenty of incentive to claim something is still covered even if it's not."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090626/1421065375.shtml

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

UK Copyright Expiration On Popeye May Be A Test For Mickey Mouse, TechDirt.com, 12/31/08

Via TechDirt.com: UK Copyright Expiration On Popeye May Be A Test For Mickey Mouse:

"And... the reality is that not very much different might happen.

That's because even though the copyright on the character has fallen into the public domain, the trademark remains -- and the current holder of the Popeye trademark in the UK, King Features (owned by Hearst), is expected to "protect its brand aggressively." That means people will still be quite limited in how they can use Popeye. If King Features is able to successfully use trademark law to keep Popeye under control, perhaps Disney won't go quite so crazy trying to extend the copyright on Mickey Mouse again... Either way, this little "experiment" will be worth watching."

http://techdirt.com/articles/20081231/1202033265.shtml

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Popeye the Sailor copyright free [in UK] 70 years after Elzie Segar's death, London Times, 12/30/08

Via London Times: Popeye the Sailor copyright free [in UK] 70 years after Elzie Segar's death:

"From January 1, the iconic sailor falls into the public domain in Britain under an EU law that restricts the rights of authors to 70 years after their death. Elzie Segar, the Illinois artist who created Popeye, his love interest Olive Oyl and nemesis Bluto, died in 1938.

The Popeye industry stretches from books, toys and action figures to computer games, a fast-food chain and the inevitable canned spinach.

The copyright expiry means that, from Thursday, anyone can print and sell Popeye posters, T-shirts and even create new comic strips, without the need for authorisation or to make royalty payments...

The question of whether any enterprising food company can now attach Popeye's famous face to their spinach cans will have to be tested in court.

While the copyright is about to expire inside the EU, the character is protected in the US until 2024. US law protects a work for 95 years after its initial copyright.

The Popeye trademark, a separate entity to Segar's authorial copyright, is owned by King Features, a subsidiary of the Hearst Corporation — the US entertainment giant — which is expected to protect its brand aggressively.

Mark Owen, an intellectual property specialist at the law firm Harbottle & Lewis, said: “The Segar drawings are out of copyright, so anyone could put those on T-shirts, posters and cards and create a thriving business. If you sold a Popeye toy or Popeye spinach can, you could be infringing the trademark.”

Mr Owen added: “Popeye is one of the first of the famous 20th-century cartoon characters to fall out of copyright. Betty Boop and ultimately Mickey Mouse will follow.”

Segar's premature death, aged 43, means that Popeye is an early test case for cartoon characters. The earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons will not fall into the US public domain until at least 2023 after the Disney corporation successfully lobbied Congress for a copyright extension."

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/kids_tv/article5415854.ece