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
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Marvel sues to invalidate copyright claims by Jack Kirby's heirs; ComicBookResources.com, 1/8/10
ComicBookResources.com; Marvel sues to invalidate copyright claims by Jack Kirby's heirs:
"Marvel struck back today at the heirs of Jack Kirby, asking a judge to invalidate notices sent in September to terminate the copyrights to such characters as the Fantastic Four, the X-Men and Spider-Man.
In a lawsuit filed today in New York City, lawyers for Marvel assert that Kirby's work for the company was "for hire," invalidating the claims of the heirs.
"The notices filed by the heirs are an attempt to rewrite the history of Kirby's relationship with Marvel," John Turitzin, Marvel's general counsel, said in a press release. "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."
The heirs, represented by Marc Toberoff -- he's the attorney who helped the wife and daughter of Jerry Siegel regain a share of Superman -- issued 45 copyright-termination notices to Marvel, Disney, Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and others who have made films and other forms of entertainment based on characters that Kirby co-created.
Under U.S. copyright law, authors or their heirs and estates may file to regain copyrights, or partial copyrights, at a certain period of time after the original transfer of rights. However, if the property is determined to be "work made for hire," the copyright would belong to the company that commissioned it.
Marvel argues that the company's editors determined which titles Kirby and other creators worked on, "and always retained full editorial control."
"If, for example, Marvel gave a writer or artist an assignment to create a comic book story populated with new characters or to illustrate a comic book story with depictions of its characters -- and paid the writer or artist for carrying out the assignment -- the publisher, not the writer or artist, would own the copyright," the press release asserts. "All of Kirby's contributions to Marvel comic books the heirs are claiming for themselves fall into this category."
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 Stan 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 Steve Ditko's interests."
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/01/marvel-sues-to-invalidate-copyright-claims-by-jack-kirbys-heirs/
"Marvel struck back today at the heirs of Jack Kirby, asking a judge to invalidate notices sent in September to terminate the copyrights to such characters as the Fantastic Four, the X-Men and Spider-Man.
In a lawsuit filed today in New York City, lawyers for Marvel assert that Kirby's work for the company was "for hire," invalidating the claims of the heirs.
"The notices filed by the heirs are an attempt to rewrite the history of Kirby's relationship with Marvel," John Turitzin, Marvel's general counsel, said in a press release. "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."
The heirs, represented by Marc Toberoff -- he's the attorney who helped the wife and daughter of Jerry Siegel regain a share of Superman -- issued 45 copyright-termination notices to Marvel, Disney, Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and others who have made films and other forms of entertainment based on characters that Kirby co-created.
Under U.S. copyright law, authors or their heirs and estates may file to regain copyrights, or partial copyrights, at a certain period of time after the original transfer of rights. However, if the property is determined to be "work made for hire," the copyright would belong to the company that commissioned it.
Marvel argues that the company's editors determined which titles Kirby and other creators worked on, "and always retained full editorial control."
"If, for example, Marvel gave a writer or artist an assignment to create a comic book story populated with new characters or to illustrate a comic book story with depictions of its characters -- and paid the writer or artist for carrying out the assignment -- the publisher, not the writer or artist, would own the copyright," the press release asserts. "All of Kirby's contributions to Marvel comic books the heirs are claiming for themselves fall into this category."
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 Stan 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 Steve Ditko's interests."
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/01/marvel-sues-to-invalidate-copyright-claims-by-jack-kirbys-heirs/
[Podcast & Transcript] Google's Goal: Digitize Every Book Ever Printed, PBS NewsHour
[Podcast & Transcript] PBS NewsHour; Google's Goal: Digitize Every Book Ever Printed:
"GARY REBACK: People no longer see any big difference between Google and Google's competitors. They're in it for money. And we need to depend on the competitive system to protect us.
SPENCER MICHELS: Does that go for Amazon and Microsoft as well?
GARY REBACK: It absolutely does. In this case, for example, Amazon was digitizing books long before Google was. Microsoft wanted to digitize books. Neither of them got the same deal that Google got -- got secretly, but, if they had, we would be -- all be better off because of it.
SPENCER MICHELS: Questions like those are being debated around the world. At Stanford, top librarians met recently to wrestle with how to adapt to the new online book resources and whether to cooperate with digitizations of their collections.
And bookstores like Berkeley's Pegasus, already in competition with discount booksellers, have to adapt as well. This store now sells digital books through its Web site. Besides the competition from online books, store owner Amy Thomas also worries about privacy of digital book buyers.
AMY THOMAS: They have a right to read without being -- having their reading records subpoenaed for whatever reason. They have a right to this privacy. And we will hope that Google will maintain, zealously maintain, defend those rights.
SPENCER MICHELS: Pam Samuelson is equally skeptical of Google's privacy policies. She puts her trust in libraries.
For its part, Google says it has been a huge advocate for user privacy. Antitrust concerns, copyright law, competition and privacy are all at issue in a flurry of lawsuits, friend-of-the-court briefs and interest from the Department of Justice. They will come to a head in February, when a federal judge holds a hearing on the Google case in New York."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec09/google_12-30.html
"GARY REBACK: People no longer see any big difference between Google and Google's competitors. They're in it for money. And we need to depend on the competitive system to protect us.
SPENCER MICHELS: Does that go for Amazon and Microsoft as well?
GARY REBACK: It absolutely does. In this case, for example, Amazon was digitizing books long before Google was. Microsoft wanted to digitize books. Neither of them got the same deal that Google got -- got secretly, but, if they had, we would be -- all be better off because of it.
SPENCER MICHELS: Questions like those are being debated around the world. At Stanford, top librarians met recently to wrestle with how to adapt to the new online book resources and whether to cooperate with digitizations of their collections.
And bookstores like Berkeley's Pegasus, already in competition with discount booksellers, have to adapt as well. This store now sells digital books through its Web site. Besides the competition from online books, store owner Amy Thomas also worries about privacy of digital book buyers.
AMY THOMAS: They have a right to read without being -- having their reading records subpoenaed for whatever reason. They have a right to this privacy. And we will hope that Google will maintain, zealously maintain, defend those rights.
SPENCER MICHELS: Pam Samuelson is equally skeptical of Google's privacy policies. She puts her trust in libraries.
For its part, Google says it has been a huge advocate for user privacy. Antitrust concerns, copyright law, competition and privacy are all at issue in a flurry of lawsuits, friend-of-the-court briefs and interest from the Department of Justice. They will come to a head in February, when a federal judge holds a hearing on the Google case in New York."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec09/google_12-30.html
‘Avatar’ Commandeers Film Piracy Record; New York Times, 1/6/10
Dave Itzkoff, New York Times; ‘Avatar’ Commandeers Film Piracy Record:
"As “Avatar” knocks down box office records, the film has hit another, less estimable milestone: it has become the fastest-pirated movie, according to one tracking firm’s figures. The Times of London reported that “Avatar,” starring Zoë Saldana, right, was illegally downloaded 500,000 times in the first two days of its release and 980,000 times in the first week, citing figures from the Web site TorrentFreak.com, which tracks usage of the file-sharing tool BitTorrent. In the days leading up to the film’s release last month, its director, James Cameron, seemed confident that the 3-D effects would essentially make it immune to piracy, telling The Times of London, “You can pirate a 3-D movie, but you can’t pirate it in 3-D, so you can’t bottle that 3-D experience.” But the TorrentFreak.com numbers seem to tell a different story: “Avatar” was illegally downloaded far more often than its closest competitor, the “Twilight” sequel “New Moon,” which was downloaded 610,000 times in its first week of release. Still, 20th Century Fox, which released “Avatar,” seemed unconcerned that piracy would hurt box office grosses, which last weekend surpassed $1 billion in worldwide ticket sales. “Bootleg copies are unlikely to have much impact,” a studio spokesman told The Times of London. “Seeing the movie in 3-D in a cinema offers an experience that cannot be replicated.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/movies/06arts-AVATARCOMMAN_BRF.html
"As “Avatar” knocks down box office records, the film has hit another, less estimable milestone: it has become the fastest-pirated movie, according to one tracking firm’s figures. The Times of London reported that “Avatar,” starring Zoë Saldana, right, was illegally downloaded 500,000 times in the first two days of its release and 980,000 times in the first week, citing figures from the Web site TorrentFreak.com, which tracks usage of the file-sharing tool BitTorrent. In the days leading up to the film’s release last month, its director, James Cameron, seemed confident that the 3-D effects would essentially make it immune to piracy, telling The Times of London, “You can pirate a 3-D movie, but you can’t pirate it in 3-D, so you can’t bottle that 3-D experience.” But the TorrentFreak.com numbers seem to tell a different story: “Avatar” was illegally downloaded far more often than its closest competitor, the “Twilight” sequel “New Moon,” which was downloaded 610,000 times in its first week of release. Still, 20th Century Fox, which released “Avatar,” seemed unconcerned that piracy would hurt box office grosses, which last weekend surpassed $1 billion in worldwide ticket sales. “Bootleg copies are unlikely to have much impact,” a studio spokesman told The Times of London. “Seeing the movie in 3-D in a cinema offers an experience that cannot be replicated.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/movies/06arts-AVATARCOMMAN_BRF.html
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2010?; Center for the Study of the Public Domain, 1/5/10
Center for the Study of the Public Domain; What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2010?; Center for the Study of the Public Domain:
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pre1976
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pre1976
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Counterfeiting in China thrives: experts; Sydney Morning Herald, 1/3/09
Allison Jackson, Sydney Morning Herald; Counterfeiting in China thrives: experts:
"While China has talked up its recent progress in stamping out copyright piracy, the market for fake iPhones and bootleg DVDs still flourishes, and its trading partners say it could do better.
Late last month, the United States -- consistently critical of Beijing's failure to stop the illicit production of US brands -- issued an annual report saying piracy in the Asian giant remained at "unacceptably high levels".
Analysts say despite official crackdowns and successful prosecutions, graft and weak policing means factories continue to churn out fake goods, costing foreign and domestic firms billions of US dollars in lost revenue.
"Local protectionism and government corruption are the real issue," Daniel Chow, a professor at the Ohio State University College of Law, told AFP.
"The central government is probably sincere but enforcement occurs at the local level, and local governments have a direct and indirect interest in protecting counterfeiting, which is important to the local economy."
China's counterfeit and piracy market is the biggest in the world and employs millions of factory workers, distributors and shop assistants across the vast country of 1.3 billion.
Fake products are readily available in stores and on the Internet in China, as well as in overseas markets from New York to Sydney, at a fraction of the cost for the real thing.
"Avatar" is smashing box office records in North America but can be bought for about a dollar in Beijing shops. Cheap copies of Apple's iPhone were available in China long before the smartphone was officially launched in 2009.
"In China, you can get enforcement but no deterrence," said Chow.
"You can easily get a raid but there are no consequences to the counterfeiter, who usually pays a light fine and is back in business in two to three weeks."
In his annual report to Congress before Christmas, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk -- a key member of US President Barack Obama's delegation for his first official visit to China in November -- was damning.
"Despite repeated anti-piracy campaigns in China and an increasing number of civil IPR cases in Chinese courts, counterfeiting and piracy remain at unacceptably high levels and continue to cause serious harm to US businesses across many sectors of the economy," Kirk said.
Kirk's comments followed a decision by the US Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus to place China among the top five countries on its "International Piracy Watch List" for 2009.
But Beijing says it has made "notable progress" in the war on Internet piracy and copyright infringement, state media reported last month, citing an official from the National Copyright Administration of China."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/counterfeiting-in-china-thrives-experts-20100103-ln0u.html
"While China has talked up its recent progress in stamping out copyright piracy, the market for fake iPhones and bootleg DVDs still flourishes, and its trading partners say it could do better.
Late last month, the United States -- consistently critical of Beijing's failure to stop the illicit production of US brands -- issued an annual report saying piracy in the Asian giant remained at "unacceptably high levels".
Analysts say despite official crackdowns and successful prosecutions, graft and weak policing means factories continue to churn out fake goods, costing foreign and domestic firms billions of US dollars in lost revenue.
"Local protectionism and government corruption are the real issue," Daniel Chow, a professor at the Ohio State University College of Law, told AFP.
"The central government is probably sincere but enforcement occurs at the local level, and local governments have a direct and indirect interest in protecting counterfeiting, which is important to the local economy."
China's counterfeit and piracy market is the biggest in the world and employs millions of factory workers, distributors and shop assistants across the vast country of 1.3 billion.
Fake products are readily available in stores and on the Internet in China, as well as in overseas markets from New York to Sydney, at a fraction of the cost for the real thing.
"Avatar" is smashing box office records in North America but can be bought for about a dollar in Beijing shops. Cheap copies of Apple's iPhone were available in China long before the smartphone was officially launched in 2009.
"In China, you can get enforcement but no deterrence," said Chow.
"You can easily get a raid but there are no consequences to the counterfeiter, who usually pays a light fine and is back in business in two to three weeks."
In his annual report to Congress before Christmas, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk -- a key member of US President Barack Obama's delegation for his first official visit to China in November -- was damning.
"Despite repeated anti-piracy campaigns in China and an increasing number of civil IPR cases in Chinese courts, counterfeiting and piracy remain at unacceptably high levels and continue to cause serious harm to US businesses across many sectors of the economy," Kirk said.
Kirk's comments followed a decision by the US Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus to place China among the top five countries on its "International Piracy Watch List" for 2009.
But Beijing says it has made "notable progress" in the war on Internet piracy and copyright infringement, state media reported last month, citing an official from the National Copyright Administration of China."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/counterfeiting-in-china-thrives-experts-20100103-ln0u.html
Friday, January 1, 2010
Chinese author plans lawsuit over Google Books; CNet News, 12/28/09
Tom Krazit, CNet News; Chinese author plans lawsuit over Google Books:
"A Chinese author plans to sue Google for scanning one of her books into the Google Books database without her permission, according to a report.
Mian Mian intends to file suit this week against Google, claiming copyright infringement after discovering that her third book, "Acid Lovers," was scanned by Google as part of its book digitization project, according to AFP. The suit would be the first filed against Google in China over the Google Books project, which itself is no stranger to the courtroom."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10422290-265.html
"A Chinese author plans to sue Google for scanning one of her books into the Google Books database without her permission, according to a report.
Mian Mian intends to file suit this week against Google, claiming copyright infringement after discovering that her third book, "Acid Lovers," was scanned by Google as part of its book digitization project, according to AFP. The suit would be the first filed against Google in China over the Google Books project, which itself is no stranger to the courtroom."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10422290-265.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)