Kelly Truong, Chronicle of Higher Education Wired Campus; Judge Reduces Student's File-Sharing Fine by 90 Percent:
"A federal judge has cut a Boston University student’s illegal file-sharing fine by 90 percent, declaring the original fee “unconstitutionally excessive.”
Last July, a jury decided on a fine of $675,000 against Joel Tenenbaum, a graduate student, for downloading and distributing 30 songs. He filed for a retrial, which resulted in the reduced penalty of $67,500, set by U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner on Friday.
In her 62-page ruling, the judge called the original fine “unprecedented and oppressive” and said it violated the Fifth Amendment’s due-process clause. “There is no question that this reduced award is still severe, even harsh,” she judge.
The Recording Industry Association of America, representing the four major recording labels to which Mr. Tenenbaum owes payment, issued a statement declaring its intention to contest the new ruling: “With this decision, the court has substituted its judgment for that of 10 jurors as well as Congress,” the company wrote.
Mr. Tenenbaum told The Boston Globe that despite the reduction, he remains unable to afford the fee. “It’s basically equally unpayable to me,” he said.
According to JoelFightsBack.com, a Web site established by Mr. Tenenbaum’s lawyer to publicize the case, the student intends to continue pursuing legal action, on the grounds that he was denied a fair trial."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Judge-Reduces-Students/25459/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+chronicle%2Fwiredcampus+(The+Chronicle%3A+Wired+Campus)
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Prince's war with iTunes plays into the hands of illegal filesharers; (London) Guardian,
Helienne Lindvall, (London) Guardian; Prince's war with iTunes plays into the hands of illegal filesharers: Prince is right to have issues with iTunes and YouTube. But making his album available only to Mirror readers goes against his philosophy of reaching as many listeners as possible:
"As a Prince fan, I bought the Mirror for the first time on Saturday to get a copy of his latest album, 20Ten. As a musician, I was puzzled by why he felt the need to give away his music with a UK tabloid that costs 65p. I was equally perplexed by his decision to snub iTunes because it doesn't pay advances. Why would he need an advance? He's Prince, for God's sake. Surely he should trust that people would buy his music anyway. Besides, many more fans would have access to iTunes than a newsagent on one day.
In an interview with the Mirror, Prince compared the internet to MTV, saying that its days are numbered. Is this the reason why, when I put his new CD into my computer, Gracenote, the music database used by iTunes, didn't recognise the titles? Is that why there were 66 five-second silent tracks before the bonus track?
It's a strange turnaround for someone who, a decade ago, described Napster as "exciting". "What might happen with young people exchanging music is that they might develop a real appreciation," the "purple Yoda from the heart of Minnesota" said. He also claimed that online distribution could enable musicians to end exploitation from record labels. Surprisingly, despite his dismay with the music industry, Prince later signed with Columbia Records and, in 2005, with Universal.
Since then, he seems to have had a change of heart. Prince has reportedly threatened YouTube with a lawsuit for copyright infringement, forcing it to take down live footage of him playing Radiohead's Creep at the Coachella festival in 2008. Now, I have issues with YouTube, and I fully support an artist's right to decide what happens to their music, but Prince's decision to make his new album available as an exclusive covermount goes against his philosophy of reaching as many listeners as possible.
The Entertainment Retailers Association (ERA), unsurprisingly, objected to Prince releasing his album as a covermount. Pointing out that his record sales have halved since the first Daily Mail covermount in 2007, it claims Prince's latest move "could kill his career". While there could be other explanations for the decrease in sales – illegal filesharing, for example – I agree that covermounts devalue music. It makes people question if a CD is really worth £8 when a major artist such as Prince can afford to give it away with a 65p paper.
I agree with independent record label Blancomusic that it's unfair that iTunes takes the same share of the retail price (30%) as the bricks-and-mortar shops, manufacturers and distributors – despite not taking the same risks when stocking product. I also agree that artists make little from other digital stores and streaming services. Yet, making their music available on legal digital outlets is something that they all have had to accept. That's what music fans want, and if they can't get it legally they'll get it illegally, without paying a penny.
ERA concluded its press release by saying: "Go away and make an album that people are prepared to pay for. We still have faith you [Prince] can do it." With 20Ten, I think he has. Unfortunately, most people will now only be able to get it illegally."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/jul/12/prince-itunes
"As a Prince fan, I bought the Mirror for the first time on Saturday to get a copy of his latest album, 20Ten. As a musician, I was puzzled by why he felt the need to give away his music with a UK tabloid that costs 65p. I was equally perplexed by his decision to snub iTunes because it doesn't pay advances. Why would he need an advance? He's Prince, for God's sake. Surely he should trust that people would buy his music anyway. Besides, many more fans would have access to iTunes than a newsagent on one day.
In an interview with the Mirror, Prince compared the internet to MTV, saying that its days are numbered. Is this the reason why, when I put his new CD into my computer, Gracenote, the music database used by iTunes, didn't recognise the titles? Is that why there were 66 five-second silent tracks before the bonus track?
It's a strange turnaround for someone who, a decade ago, described Napster as "exciting". "What might happen with young people exchanging music is that they might develop a real appreciation," the "purple Yoda from the heart of Minnesota" said. He also claimed that online distribution could enable musicians to end exploitation from record labels. Surprisingly, despite his dismay with the music industry, Prince later signed with Columbia Records and, in 2005, with Universal.
Since then, he seems to have had a change of heart. Prince has reportedly threatened YouTube with a lawsuit for copyright infringement, forcing it to take down live footage of him playing Radiohead's Creep at the Coachella festival in 2008. Now, I have issues with YouTube, and I fully support an artist's right to decide what happens to their music, but Prince's decision to make his new album available as an exclusive covermount goes against his philosophy of reaching as many listeners as possible.
The Entertainment Retailers Association (ERA), unsurprisingly, objected to Prince releasing his album as a covermount. Pointing out that his record sales have halved since the first Daily Mail covermount in 2007, it claims Prince's latest move "could kill his career". While there could be other explanations for the decrease in sales – illegal filesharing, for example – I agree that covermounts devalue music. It makes people question if a CD is really worth £8 when a major artist such as Prince can afford to give it away with a 65p paper.
I agree with independent record label Blancomusic that it's unfair that iTunes takes the same share of the retail price (30%) as the bricks-and-mortar shops, manufacturers and distributors – despite not taking the same risks when stocking product. I also agree that artists make little from other digital stores and streaming services. Yet, making their music available on legal digital outlets is something that they all have had to accept. That's what music fans want, and if they can't get it legally they'll get it illegally, without paying a penny.
ERA concluded its press release by saying: "Go away and make an album that people are prepared to pay for. We still have faith you [Prince] can do it." With 20Ten, I think he has. Unfortunately, most people will now only be able to get it illegally."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/jul/12/prince-itunes
Ebook deals 'not remotely fair' on authors; (London) Guardian, 7/12/10
Alison Flood, (London) Guardian; Ebook deals 'not remotely fair' on authors: Digital publishing deals locking writers in for the duration of copyright risk damaging industry, says Society of Authors chair:
"The chair of the Society of Authors, Tom Holland, has hit out at publishers' attempt to seize control over electronic rights, calling ebook deals that lock authors in for the duration of copyright "not remotely fair".
Speaking at the Romantic Novelists' Association's annual conference last week, Holland urged authors to push for ebook royalties that are "considerably higher" than the standard of around 25%. Although Holland said the market for ebooks is only about 1% of the total UK market, it is "growing fast" and the Society of Authors believes that, given publishers will eventually have much lower warehousing and distribution costs for ebooks, royalties should be divided 50/50.
"Most publishers are insisting they should control ebook rights and this will be written into standard contracts. I think it's an entirely reasonable position to take, so long as the royalties and returns on ebooks are fair and proper and reasonable. If they are not, I suspect we may well find very big-name authors, such as JK Rowling or Dan Brown, will go their own way," said Holland. "It's a danger publishers need to recognise and a danger for writers as well. If JK Rowling controls her own ebook rights [then] there's less money for her publisher to invest in new authors. We could face a situation of very big-name authors pulling the ladder up after them [and] we have a stake in seeing a healthy publishing industry."
Although publishers "are inclined to dismiss the argument that costs are reduced on ebooks", Holland said: "Once a system has been set up, publishers won't be paying for warehousing, distribution and printing, and we have to ask ourselves what are they spending the money on?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jul/12/ebooks-publishing-deals-fair
"The chair of the Society of Authors, Tom Holland, has hit out at publishers' attempt to seize control over electronic rights, calling ebook deals that lock authors in for the duration of copyright "not remotely fair".
Speaking at the Romantic Novelists' Association's annual conference last week, Holland urged authors to push for ebook royalties that are "considerably higher" than the standard of around 25%. Although Holland said the market for ebooks is only about 1% of the total UK market, it is "growing fast" and the Society of Authors believes that, given publishers will eventually have much lower warehousing and distribution costs for ebooks, royalties should be divided 50/50.
"Most publishers are insisting they should control ebook rights and this will be written into standard contracts. I think it's an entirely reasonable position to take, so long as the royalties and returns on ebooks are fair and proper and reasonable. If they are not, I suspect we may well find very big-name authors, such as JK Rowling or Dan Brown, will go their own way," said Holland. "It's a danger publishers need to recognise and a danger for writers as well. If JK Rowling controls her own ebook rights [then] there's less money for her publisher to invest in new authors. We could face a situation of very big-name authors pulling the ladder up after them [and] we have a stake in seeing a healthy publishing industry."
Although publishers "are inclined to dismiss the argument that costs are reduced on ebooks", Holland said: "Once a system has been set up, publishers won't be paying for warehousing, distribution and printing, and we have to ask ourselves what are they spending the money on?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jul/12/ebooks-publishing-deals-fair
Can you sell your imported gadgets? Court guts "First Sale", 7/12/10
Matthew Lasar, ArsTechnica.com; Can you sell your imported gadgets? Court guts "First Sale":
"Let's say a relative gave you an imported Omega watch over the holidays. It's a nice piece, but it's not exactly your style, so after agonizing over the issue for the appropriate number of months, you decide to sell it over eBay.
Not so fast. Thanks to a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that might not be so easy. In fact, the store that sold it, Costco, shouldn't have sold it in the first place, the court recently ruled, because the doctrine of "First Sale" has limits. Section 109 of the Copyright Act says that a copyright owner of a product has the sole initial right to distribute it. Then the subsequent buyers have the right to "to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy"—in other words, sell it again.
But now the Ninth Circuit says this doesn't necessarily apply to items in which a company's copyrighted logo was inscribed on a product made abroad, as in this case. The Public Knowledge advocacy group calls this decision "a terrible idea," and has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, which is reviewing the case.
"What happens to Netflix, Amazon and eBay," PK's Anjali Bhat worries, "if they have to find out where each item was made, whether it has a copyrighted logo made outside the US (if the item itself isn't a copyrighted work), and then buy licensing rights from the copyright owner if the item was made abroad? That's an enormous economic burden to put on businesses who follow that model."...
The implications of this decision are huge, creating potential liabilities for anyone who distributes anything en masse: libraries, booksellers, or your local DVD or video game rental store."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/if-you-buy-an-imported-watch-do-you-really-own-it.ars
"Let's say a relative gave you an imported Omega watch over the holidays. It's a nice piece, but it's not exactly your style, so after agonizing over the issue for the appropriate number of months, you decide to sell it over eBay.
Not so fast. Thanks to a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that might not be so easy. In fact, the store that sold it, Costco, shouldn't have sold it in the first place, the court recently ruled, because the doctrine of "First Sale" has limits. Section 109 of the Copyright Act says that a copyright owner of a product has the sole initial right to distribute it. Then the subsequent buyers have the right to "to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy"—in other words, sell it again.
But now the Ninth Circuit says this doesn't necessarily apply to items in which a company's copyrighted logo was inscribed on a product made abroad, as in this case. The Public Knowledge advocacy group calls this decision "a terrible idea," and has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, which is reviewing the case.
"What happens to Netflix, Amazon and eBay," PK's Anjali Bhat worries, "if they have to find out where each item was made, whether it has a copyrighted logo made outside the US (if the item itself isn't a copyrighted work), and then buy licensing rights from the copyright owner if the item was made abroad? That's an enormous economic burden to put on businesses who follow that model."...
The implications of this decision are huge, creating potential liabilities for anyone who distributes anything en masse: libraries, booksellers, or your local DVD or video game rental store."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/if-you-buy-an-imported-watch-do-you-really-own-it.ars
WSJ Opinion Highlights The Problems Of 'Permission Culture'; TechDirt.com, 7/12/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; WSJ Opinion Highlights The Problems Of 'Permission Culture':
"A bunch of folks have been sending in this Wall Street Journal opinion piece by author Tony Woodlief, where he aptly demonstrates the problems with the "permission culture" we've built up around copyright today. Often we'll discuss some of these things in posts, and defenders of the existing copyright regime will say "well, it's no problem, because you can just ask for permission" (here's an example of that kind of thinking). Of course, the reality is that it's not so easy at all. Woodlief points out that publishers are taking a very short-sighted view and demanding ridiculous amounts of money for tiny snippets of use, such that it makes no sense to use those works at all, and often the original content creators and society is worse off for it..."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/01320410171.shtml
"A bunch of folks have been sending in this Wall Street Journal opinion piece by author Tony Woodlief, where he aptly demonstrates the problems with the "permission culture" we've built up around copyright today. Often we'll discuss some of these things in posts, and defenders of the existing copyright regime will say "well, it's no problem, because you can just ask for permission" (here's an example of that kind of thinking). Of course, the reality is that it's not so easy at all. Woodlief points out that publishers are taking a very short-sighted view and demanding ridiculous amounts of money for tiny snippets of use, such that it makes no sense to use those works at all, and often the original content creators and society is worse off for it..."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/01320410171.shtml
Curse of the Greedy Copyright Holders, Wall Street Journal, 7/9/10
Tony Woodlief, Wall Street Journal; Curse of the Greedy Copyright Holders:
"'Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal," wrote T.S. Eliot. I am neither poet nor thief, so when I wanted poems at the start of each chapter in my recently published memoir, I sought permission. The poem that best describes my experience is "The Odyssey," navigating as I did between the Scylla of non-responsive copyright holders and the Charybdis of fee-seeking attorneys.
Modern copyright practices spur artists to unmoor our work from what has inspired us. Art—along with many artists supposedly protected by these laws—is arguably poorer for it.
The modern copyright battle is more interesting than its associated legalities. Advocates of copyright restrictions found a bête noire in curmudgeonly novelist Mark Helprin, who argued that Congress should extend "the term of copyright . . . as far as it can throw."
Opponents took this to mean perpetual copyright, which Mr. Helprin denies. In turn he accuses his vocal critic Lawrence Lessig, co-founder of Creative Commons—a nonprofit that encourages art sharing consistent with copyrights—of leading a movement to ravage Western civilization.
In reality, both sides agree with the premise embedded in the Constitution, which is that people ought not enjoy art without compensating the artist, any more than one can dine without paying the chef. They also recognize that while we want to give artists incentives, we don't want the costs to be so high that art appreciation—a difficult cultural attribute to re-establish once it is lost —declines.
Mr. Lessig appears to win on the economics. Mr. Helprin claims injustice in the fact that the family of a factory owner can inherit his property through generations, while the family of a writer loses rights to his creations in a relatively short time. Mr. Lessig observes, however, that copyright holders don't pay property taxes, which evens out financial returns over the course of a 95-year copyright.
But in dollar terms, some decisions by copyright holders, rather than optimize the artist's revenue and distribution, insure the opposite. When I asked to use a single line by songwriter Joe Henry, for example, his record label's parent company demanded $150 for every 7,500 copies of my book. Assuming I sell enough books to earn back my modest advance, this amounts to roughly 1.5% of my earnings, all for quoting eight words from one of Mr. Henry's songs.
I love Joe Henry, but the price was too high. I replaced him with Shakespeare, whose work (depending on which edition you use) is in the public domain. Mr. Henry's record label may differ, but it's not clear that his interests —or theirs—are being served here. Were they concerned that readers might have their thirst for Mr. Henry's music sated by that single lyric? Isn't it more likely that his lyric would have enticed customers who otherwise wouldn't have heard of him?
The copyright thicket is a growing frustration among writers and editors. One editor of a popular literary anthology (who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals from publishers) confirmed that many publishers pursue illusory short-term profit at the expense of both profit and art. By demanding fees that most people won't pay, they forsake free advertising for the artists they claim to protect. If restaurants behaved that way, not only would they deny you the right to take home leftovers to your dog, they'd try to charge you for smelling their food when you pass by.
Further, this editor noted that one reason literary anthologies and college-course syllabi have replaced classics with less edifying sources like newspaper articles and diaries is simply that major artists in the American literary canon are too expensive to procure en masse, if not totally off limits. The estates of William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway have historically restricted which stories can be used in anthologies, which means that students often have a narrow exposure to two of our country's finest writers.
For an idea of where this is all leading, note that the publishing world is being roiled by a controversy that erupted in the music industry several years ago, when musicians and record companies went after enterprises, like Napster, that facilitated music theft. It sounds noble enough, but it's not clear this actually benefited artists.
Economists Koleman Strumpf and Felix Oberholzer-Gee found that while illegal downloads deprive musicians of rightful compensation, they also advertise the artists' work to more people, many of whom subsequently go out and buy the music. The net result is revenue-neutral.
As a memoir author, I reached the height of frustration when I realized it was going to take heroic effort to use J.R.R. Tolkien's "Bath Song," which is controlled by a division of my own publisher's parent company. Between that, and fee demands or non-responses from other publishers, I turned to my poet friends.
"Will you," I asked them, "give me a poem in return for a book and dinner?" Now my book has some lovely poems by very fine poets most people don't yet know.
So perhaps I shouldn't complain. It's hard to borrow work by recognized artists, but when one door closes, as they say, another door opens.
Still, I can't help but wonder if major publishers might want to let economists, rather than copyright attorneys, govern their decisions in this area. If you agree, perhaps you might quote this essay to them. I'm sure we can work out a reasonable fee."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608104575220551906611796.html
"'Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal," wrote T.S. Eliot. I am neither poet nor thief, so when I wanted poems at the start of each chapter in my recently published memoir, I sought permission. The poem that best describes my experience is "The Odyssey," navigating as I did between the Scylla of non-responsive copyright holders and the Charybdis of fee-seeking attorneys.
Modern copyright practices spur artists to unmoor our work from what has inspired us. Art—along with many artists supposedly protected by these laws—is arguably poorer for it.
The modern copyright battle is more interesting than its associated legalities. Advocates of copyright restrictions found a bête noire in curmudgeonly novelist Mark Helprin, who argued that Congress should extend "the term of copyright . . . as far as it can throw."
Opponents took this to mean perpetual copyright, which Mr. Helprin denies. In turn he accuses his vocal critic Lawrence Lessig, co-founder of Creative Commons—a nonprofit that encourages art sharing consistent with copyrights—of leading a movement to ravage Western civilization.
In reality, both sides agree with the premise embedded in the Constitution, which is that people ought not enjoy art without compensating the artist, any more than one can dine without paying the chef. They also recognize that while we want to give artists incentives, we don't want the costs to be so high that art appreciation—a difficult cultural attribute to re-establish once it is lost —declines.
Mr. Lessig appears to win on the economics. Mr. Helprin claims injustice in the fact that the family of a factory owner can inherit his property through generations, while the family of a writer loses rights to his creations in a relatively short time. Mr. Lessig observes, however, that copyright holders don't pay property taxes, which evens out financial returns over the course of a 95-year copyright.
But in dollar terms, some decisions by copyright holders, rather than optimize the artist's revenue and distribution, insure the opposite. When I asked to use a single line by songwriter Joe Henry, for example, his record label's parent company demanded $150 for every 7,500 copies of my book. Assuming I sell enough books to earn back my modest advance, this amounts to roughly 1.5% of my earnings, all for quoting eight words from one of Mr. Henry's songs.
I love Joe Henry, but the price was too high. I replaced him with Shakespeare, whose work (depending on which edition you use) is in the public domain. Mr. Henry's record label may differ, but it's not clear that his interests —or theirs—are being served here. Were they concerned that readers might have their thirst for Mr. Henry's music sated by that single lyric? Isn't it more likely that his lyric would have enticed customers who otherwise wouldn't have heard of him?
The copyright thicket is a growing frustration among writers and editors. One editor of a popular literary anthology (who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals from publishers) confirmed that many publishers pursue illusory short-term profit at the expense of both profit and art. By demanding fees that most people won't pay, they forsake free advertising for the artists they claim to protect. If restaurants behaved that way, not only would they deny you the right to take home leftovers to your dog, they'd try to charge you for smelling their food when you pass by.
Further, this editor noted that one reason literary anthologies and college-course syllabi have replaced classics with less edifying sources like newspaper articles and diaries is simply that major artists in the American literary canon are too expensive to procure en masse, if not totally off limits. The estates of William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway have historically restricted which stories can be used in anthologies, which means that students often have a narrow exposure to two of our country's finest writers.
For an idea of where this is all leading, note that the publishing world is being roiled by a controversy that erupted in the music industry several years ago, when musicians and record companies went after enterprises, like Napster, that facilitated music theft. It sounds noble enough, but it's not clear this actually benefited artists.
Economists Koleman Strumpf and Felix Oberholzer-Gee found that while illegal downloads deprive musicians of rightful compensation, they also advertise the artists' work to more people, many of whom subsequently go out and buy the music. The net result is revenue-neutral.
As a memoir author, I reached the height of frustration when I realized it was going to take heroic effort to use J.R.R. Tolkien's "Bath Song," which is controlled by a division of my own publisher's parent company. Between that, and fee demands or non-responses from other publishers, I turned to my poet friends.
"Will you," I asked them, "give me a poem in return for a book and dinner?" Now my book has some lovely poems by very fine poets most people don't yet know.
So perhaps I shouldn't complain. It's hard to borrow work by recognized artists, but when one door closes, as they say, another door opens.
Still, I can't help but wonder if major publishers might want to let economists, rather than copyright attorneys, govern their decisions in this area. If you agree, perhaps you might quote this essay to them. I'm sure we can work out a reasonable fee."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608104575220551906611796.html
A Comics Clash in the East; New York Times, 7/11/10
Michael Cieply, New York Times; A Comics Clash in the East:
"It appears that New York, not Los Angeles, will be the battleground for a supersize legal contest between the Marvel Entertainment unit of the Walt Disney Company and heirs of the comic book genius Jack Kirby.
When last seen in these pages, the Kirby heirs and Marvel had squared off in the federal courts of both New York and Los Angeles. Marvel first filed suit in the Southern District of New York, asking the court to confirm Disney’s ownership of comic book characters like the Incredible Hulk and the X-Men, despite Mr. Kirby’s work on them. The Kirbys fired back in the Central District of California, asserting, among other things, the right to reclaim copyrights to many of those characters.
On Tuesday, however, the Kirbys filed notice of dismissal of their complaint, closing the California case. Marc Toberoff, a lawyer who represents the family, did not immediately respond to a query about the dismissal.
But the legal battle continues to rage in New York, where the Kirbys in April filed a 29-page response to Marvel, and a counterclaim that insists on their right to terminate the copyrights, on the return of some Kirby artwork said to be in Marvel’s possession and on damages yet to be determined.
Marvel and the Kirbys have since been slugging at each other with dueling declarations and motions in the New York court, portending a long, dark struggle for control of a comic book universe on which much of Hollywood has come to depend."
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/a-comics-clash-in-the-east/?scp=1&sq=jack%20kirby&st=cse
"It appears that New York, not Los Angeles, will be the battleground for a supersize legal contest between the Marvel Entertainment unit of the Walt Disney Company and heirs of the comic book genius Jack Kirby.
When last seen in these pages, the Kirby heirs and Marvel had squared off in the federal courts of both New York and Los Angeles. Marvel first filed suit in the Southern District of New York, asking the court to confirm Disney’s ownership of comic book characters like the Incredible Hulk and the X-Men, despite Mr. Kirby’s work on them. The Kirbys fired back in the Central District of California, asserting, among other things, the right to reclaim copyrights to many of those characters.
On Tuesday, however, the Kirbys filed notice of dismissal of their complaint, closing the California case. Marc Toberoff, a lawyer who represents the family, did not immediately respond to a query about the dismissal.
But the legal battle continues to rage in New York, where the Kirbys in April filed a 29-page response to Marvel, and a counterclaim that insists on their right to terminate the copyrights, on the return of some Kirby artwork said to be in Marvel’s possession and on damages yet to be determined.
Marvel and the Kirbys have since been slugging at each other with dueling declarations and motions in the New York court, portending a long, dark struggle for control of a comic book universe on which much of Hollywood has come to depend."
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/a-comics-clash-in-the-east/?scp=1&sq=jack%20kirby&st=cse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)