Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Judge dumps a bag of burning kryptonite at the doorsteps of the heirs of Superman co-creator Joseph Shuster   (latimes.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Joseph Shuster, Superman, Windows key, super strength, secret identity, Superman co, Jerry Siegel, summary judgment  
•       •       •

12002 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2012 at 1:37 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-10-18 12:01:33 PM  
Yeah, why would a judge rule for DC when Seigel and Shuster have sold the rights to Superman to DC twice, received a pension from them for 20 years, and Shuster's widow agreed in 1992 to never file claims against DC again if DC paid all funeral expenses for Shuster and again increased survivor's benefits?

Siegel and Shuster have milked this cow dry, their heirs want to milk the marrow out of the bones, and the saddest part is the character should be in Public Domain in the first place.
 
2012-10-18 01:38:54 PM  
I would have expected them to dump the kryptonite three doors down.
 
2012-10-18 01:43:01 PM  
Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.
 
2012-10-18 01:43:09 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, why would a judge rule for DC when Seigel and Shuster have sold the rights to Superman to DC twice, received a pension from them for 20 years, and Shuster's widow agreed in 1992 to never file claims against DC again if DC paid all funeral expenses for Shuster and again increased survivor's benefits?

Siegel and Shuster have milked this cow dry, their heirs want to milk the marrow out of the bones, and the saddest part is the character should be in Public Domain in the first place.


As many Captain Ersatz's over the years as there have been, SuperDuperman is as good as in Public Domain

www.thetick.ws
 
2012-10-18 01:46:13 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-10-18 01:47:24 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: and the saddest part is the character should be in Public Domain in the first place.


farkING THIS X INFINTY

I mean, what part of the Superman hasn't been out there for YEARS
 
2012-10-18 01:47:53 PM  
So the sister basically traded hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for $25k/year?

Well, not bad considering that she and the other heirs DID NOTHING to earn it.
 
2012-10-18 01:48:19 PM  
Has anyone mention that after all these years that the"Superman" "character" should be in the "public" "Domain" by now because of it's "considerable" "visibility"of the "thematic" use of the "storyline".
 
2012-10-18 01:51:10 PM  
The fun fact is that comic books being what they are, the various strong trademarks tied to the Superman character (SUPERMAN and the various other characters like LOIS LANE, JIMMY OLSEN and the like, the logomarks of his symbol and likely the imagemark of superman himself) would survive as long as DC maintained them and would prevent people from doing too much with the big blue boyscout that they cannot already do under fair use.
 
2012-10-18 01:51:47 PM  

ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.


No, he should not.
 
2012-10-18 01:52:28 PM  
FTFA: Warner plans to release a new big-budget Superman movie, "Man of Steel," in June. Wednesday's ruling will allow it to produce sequels should that picture prove successful. In addition, the studio has been eager to produce a movie featuring the DC superhero team Justice League as soon as 2015, which would have been impossible without lead character Superman.

GODDAMNITSOMUCH.

You suck, Warner Bros. Were it not for Batman, DC live action films would be worthless because of you. Superman has been done (not amazing, but still), where the fark is a Wonder Woman film? The Flash? Green Lantern (no, I don't know what you're talking about, no GL film has been made)? Perhaps even the Martian Manhunter? I mean, what the fark?

You even have your rivals, Marvel, showing you how it's done, and done WELL. Individual films. Introduce the characters by themselves, then no need for origin stories in the crossover. Instead you're stupid and greedy, and your film is going to blow as a result. I'll be content with the Animated Series, if that's what it comes to.

And I swear, if it's a Young Justice League film, with farking teenyboppers in the roles, I will hope every day that there is a hell waiting for you in the afterlife.
 
2012-10-18 01:52:51 PM  

ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.


and now you know why they keep reinventing him.
 
2012-10-18 01:53:39 PM  

ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

Superman is trademarked, so copyright doesn't matter.
 
2012-10-18 02:00:06 PM  
In a crucial legal victory for the Burbank studio, a federal judge in Los Angeles on Wednesday denied an effort by the heirs of Superman co-creator Joseph Shuster to reclaim their 50% interest in the world's most famous superhero.

When no one was looking, they tried to take fifty percent. They tried to take 50 percent. That's as many as five tens. And that's terrible.
 
2012-10-18 02:00:41 PM  
The case is the latest and highest-stakes dispute between the creators of famous comic book characters and the entertainment giants making more money than ever from them as superheroes have exploded in popularity in the last decade. The heirs of Marvel Comics artist Jack Kirby, also represented by Toberoff, in 2011 lost in an attempt to reclaim rights to such famous characters as the Fantastic Four, X-Men and the Hulk.

I see a common, public domain theme....
 
2012-10-18 02:01:32 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, why would a judge rule for DC when Seigel and Shuster have sold the rights to Superman to DC twice, received a pension from them for 20 years, and Shuster's widow agreed in 1992 to never file claims against DC again if DC paid all funeral expenses for Shuster and again increased survivor's benefits?

Siegel and Shuster have milked this cow dry, their heirs want to milk the marrow out of the bones, and the saddest part is the character should be in Public Domain in the first place.


The right of reverter CANNOT be bargained away.
 
2012-10-18 02:07:22 PM  

roc6783: The case is the latest and highest-stakes dispute between the creators of famous comic book characters and the entertainment giants making more money than ever from them as superheroes have exploded in popularity in the last decade. The heirs of Marvel Comics artist Jack Kirby, also represented by Toberoff, in 2011 lost in an attempt to reclaim rights to such famous characters as the Fantastic Four, X-Men and the Hulk.

I see a common, public domain theme....


The rumor is that scumbag lawyer stands to get a large portion of the rights to the character if he wins.
 
2012-10-18 02:11:48 PM  
Has it been said that Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway?
 
2012-10-18 02:12:23 PM  

un4gvn666: FTFA: Warner plans to release a new big-budget Superman movie, "Man of Steel," in June. Wednesday's ruling will allow it to produce sequels should that picture prove successful. In addition, the studio has been eager to produce a movie featuring the DC superhero team Justice League as soon as 2015, which would have been impossible without lead character Superman.

GODDAMNITSOMUCH.

You suck, Warner Bros. Were it not for Batman, DC live action films would be worthless because of you. Superman has been done (not amazing, but still), where the fark is a Wonder Woman film? The Flash? Green Lantern (no, I don't know what you're talking about, no GL film has been made)? Perhaps even the Martian Manhunter? I mean, what the fark?

You even have your rivals, Marvel, showing you how it's done, and done WELL. Individual films. Introduce the characters by themselves, then no need for origin stories in the crossover. Instead you're stupid and greedy, and your film is going to blow as a result. I'll be content with the Animated Series, if that's what it comes to.

And I swear, if it's a Young Justice League film, with farking teenyboppers in the roles, I will hope every day that there is a hell waiting for you in the afterlife.


Or Mr. Banjo, for cryin' out loud! Where's his movie????

http://www.comicvine.com/mr-banjo/29-51888/
 
2012-10-18 02:12:55 PM  

Teiritzamna: The fun fact is that comic books being what they are, the various strong trademarks tied to the Superman character (SUPERMAN and the various other characters like LOIS LANE, JIMMY OLSEN and the like, the logomarks of his symbol and likely the imagemark of superman himself) would survive as long as DC maintained them and would prevent people from doing too much with the big blue boyscout that they cannot already do under fair use.


That's what I was thinking. I mean my daughter has a Superman ceiling light in her room. The whole thing has a copyright mark on it, but the part where the S Shield are and the name SUPERMAN both have TM Marks on it. So it would seem even if the copyright were to expire, Warner still owns and maintains all the trademarks. So you could make a story that was exactly like Action Comics #1 but the main character couldn't be called superman or clark kent, and he couldn't wear the red and blue outfit with the S shield. So if that was the case, what good would that be, since in a sense it would be like trying to make a comic book starring Ronald McDonald.
 
2012-10-18 02:15:04 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: the saddest part is the character should be in Public Domain in the first place.


But without continually expanding length and scope of "intellectual property" protection, what will incentivize those dead artists to keep creating?

Won't somebody please think of the dead artists?!
=Smidge=
 
2012-10-18 02:15:29 PM  

rmdpgh: un4gvn666: FTFA: Warner plans to release a new big-budget Superman movie, "Man of Steel," in June. Wednesday's ruling will allow it to produce sequels should that picture prove successful. In addition, the studio has been eager to produce a movie featuring the DC superhero team Justice League as soon as 2015, which would have been impossible without lead character Superman.

GODDAMNITSOMUCH.

You suck, Warner Bros. Were it not for Batman, DC live action films would be worthless because of you. Superman has been done (not amazing, but still), where the fark is a Wonder Woman film? The Flash? Green Lantern (no, I don't know what you're talking about, no GL film has been made)? Perhaps even the Martian Manhunter? I mean, what the fark?

You even have your rivals, Marvel, showing you how it's done, and done WELL. Individual films. Introduce the characters by themselves, then no need for origin stories in the crossover. Instead you're stupid and greedy, and your film is going to blow as a result. I'll be content with the Animated Series, if that's what it comes to.

And I swear, if it's a Young Justice League film, with farking teenyboppers in the roles, I will hope every day that there is a hell waiting for you in the afterlife.

Or Mr. Banjo, for cryin' out loud! Where's his movie????

http://www.comicvine.com/mr-banjo/29-51888/


(I suppose the questions should've been ".-- .... . .-. . ' ... .... .. ... -- --- ...- .. . ..--.. ")

/I'll go away now
 
2012-10-18 02:15:51 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, why would a judge rule for DC when Seigel and Shuster have sold the rights to Superman to DC twice, received a pension from them for 20 years, and Shuster's widow agreed in 1992 to never file claims against DC again if DC paid all funeral expenses for Shuster and again increased survivor's benefits?



This. they didn't stiff his family, they made a lowball but still decent deal (all debts paid plus $25K a year for the rest of your life for doing nothing isn't terrible) and part of the deal was that the family drop all present and future lawsuits.The family signed the deal, took the money, then reneged on their end and decided to sue anyway.

Shuster probably deserved more $$ than he got, but a lot of other people have as much to do with the character's popularity anyway. Max Fleischer, John Byrne, Richard Donner, Cristopher Reeve, etc. Especially Byrne and Donner. The version Shuster created isn't even really the one being sold anymore.
 
2012-10-18 02:16:40 PM  

Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.


So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?
 
2012-10-18 02:17:01 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: roc6783: ***snip***

The rumor is that scumbag lawyer stands to get a large portion of the rights to the character if he wins.


You would think that would motivate him to stop losing all the time, but you never know with some folks.
 
2012-10-18 02:19:17 PM  

ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?


At the time the copyright is claimed, it should be valid until every single human alive at the time of the claim is deceased.
 
2012-10-18 02:19:56 PM  

bukketmaster: FirstNationalBastard: ***snip***
Shuster probably deserved more $$ than he got, but a lot of other people have as much to do with the character's popularity anyway. Max Fleischer, John Byrne, Richard Donner, Cristopher Reeve, etc. Especially Byrne and Donner. The version Shuster created isn't even really the one being sold anymore.


I bet he wouldn't have stood for this.


///I am a terrible person
 
2012-10-18 02:22:28 PM  

you_idiot: So the sister basically traded hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for $25k/year?

Well, not bad considering that she and the other heirs DID NOTHING to earn it.


You believe family businesses should not exist?
 
2012-10-18 02:23:22 PM  
Wasn't this why they killed Superboy for awhile?
 
2012-10-18 02:27:27 PM  

Smidge204: FirstNationalBastard: the saddest part is the character should be in Public Domain in the first place.

But without continually expanding length and scope of "intellectual property" protection, what will incentivize those dead artists to keep creating?

Won't somebody please think of the dead artists?!
=Smidge=


Wow, I didn't realize until today that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyrights to [life of the author]+70 years or 120 years from creation/95 years from publication for corporate authorship.

As to the trademark issue, trademark's broad interpretation leads me to believe they're almost as bad as Copyright (considering a trademark can be almost anything that distinguishes a particular brand). 

This madness is out of control.
 
2012-10-18 02:28:32 PM  

texdent: Wasn't this why they killed Superboy for awhile?


Yep. The shiat hit the fan when Smallville debuted, and that began this round of lawsuits.
 
2012-10-18 02:29:05 PM  

rmdpgh: Or Mr. Banjo, for cryin' out loud! Where's his movie????


I honestly thought you were farkin' with me...lol
 
2012-10-18 02:30:00 PM  

ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?


I dunno, until the artist and family of the artist are all gone, with no heirs to receive the work? I mean, seriously. If I create something, what gives anyone the right to come in like vultures to take it and use it after the legal protection runs out? It's my creation, my work.
 
2012-10-18 02:33:57 PM  

Kit Fister: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

I dunno, until the artist and family of the artist are all gone, with no heirs to receive the work? I mean, seriously. If I create something, what gives anyone the right to come in like vultures to take it and use it after the legal protection runs out? It's my creation, my work.


But if you sell that work, and even sell it again a second time, should your family still make money off of it?

To use the family business analogy, if you sell your Grandpa's little general store out to Starbucks, should you expect to get a cut of all the profits Starbucks makes at that location?
 
2012-10-18 02:34:10 PM  

Kit Fister: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

I dunno, until the artist and family of the artist are all gone, with no heirs to receive the work? I mean, seriously. If I create something, what gives anyone the right to come in like vultures to take it and use it after the legal protection runs out? It's my creation, my work.


Because people place little value on ideas.
 
2012-10-18 02:38:27 PM  

Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: Has it been said that Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway?


That statement has been repeated so many times now that it has voided its own copyright.
 
2012-10-18 02:38:44 PM  

bukketmaster: Especially Byrne and Donner.


You could make the case that without Byrne the X-Men movie never gets made and possibly the whole slew of recent superhero movies but his contribution to the Superman mythos and the character's popularity is negligible.
 
2012-10-18 02:41:14 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: bukketmaster: Especially Byrne and Donner.

You could make the case that without Byrne the X-Men movie never gets made and possibly the whole slew of recent superhero movies but his contribution to the Superman mythos and the character's popularity is negligible.


For a while, Byrne's Superman was the definitive Superman.

Then the fanboy wankers came in and started reverting everything to the lame-ass Silver Age version that was retconned out of existence because it was a joke.
 
2012-10-18 02:44:23 PM  

un4gvn666: rmdpgh: Or Mr. Banjo, for cryin' out loud! Where's his movie????

I honestly thought you were farkin' with me...lol


My work here is done.
 
2012-10-18 02:47:29 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Kit Fister: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

I dunno, until the artist and family of the artist are all gone, with no heirs to receive the work? I mean, seriously. If I create something, what gives anyone the right to come in like vultures to take it and use it after the legal protection runs out? It's my creation, my work.

But if you sell that work, and even sell it again a second time, should your family still make money off of it?

To use the family business analogy, if you sell your Grandpa's little general store out to Starbucks, should you expect to get a cut of all the profits Starbucks makes at that location?


If you *sell* the rights, and sign a legal document stating that you no longer own them, then no. You sold out the rights, period.

If you *license* the rights, or sell a share of the rights, then you should be compensated/receive a cut of the profits commensurate with the license agreement or your retained share of the rights. So, for example, if I sell you 50% interest in my ownership of Kit Fisterman, then I should still see 50% of the profits (unless we negotiated and agreed otherwise). If I licensed my rights to you in an agreement that says you have the rights to use and produce works using my IP in exchange for X, then I expect X from your proceeds.

Using your analogy, i'm a dumbass if I sell grandpa's little general store to Starbucks. I get the price of the business/land/whatever, and I relinquish all claims to that business*.

If I license Starbucks to use Grandpa's Little General Store™, including location and other ancillary items related to it, then I expect to receive whatever profits and perks were negotiated as part of the licensing deal. Likewise, if i sell 50% interest in the TM/CR, then I expect 50% of whatever is brought in by anyone exercising that TM/CR.
 
2012-10-18 02:52:21 PM  

Kit Fister: FirstNationalBastard: Kit Fister: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

I dunno, until the artist and family of the artist are all gone, with no heirs to receive the work? I mean, seriously. If I create something, what gives anyone the right to come in like vultures to take it and use it after the legal protection runs out? It's my creation, my work.

But if you sell that work, and even sell it again a second time, should your family still make money off of it?

To use the family business analogy, if you sell your Grandpa's little general store out to Starbucks, should you expect to get a cut of all the profits Starbucks makes at that location?

If you *sell* the rights, and sign a legal document stating that you no longer own them, then no. You sold out the rights, period.

If you *license* the rights, or sell a share of the rights, then you should be compensated/receive a cut of the profits commensurate with the license agreement or your retained share of the rights. So, for example, if I sell you 50% interest in my ownership of Kit Fisterman, then I should still see 50% of the profits (unless we negotiated and agreed otherwise). If I licensed my rights to you in an agreement that says you have the rights to use and produce works using my IP in exchange for X, then I expect X from your proceeds.

Using your analogy, i'm a dumbass if I sell grandpa's little general store to Starbucks. I get the price of the business/land/whatever, and I relinquish all claims to that business*.

If I license Starbucks to use Grandpa's Little General Store™, including location and other ancillary items related to it, then I expect to receive whatever profits and perks were negotiated as part of the licensing deal. Likewise, if i sell 50% interest in the TM/CR, then I expect 50% of whatever is brought in by anyone exercising that TM/CR.


The "sell" option is what happened with Superman. And Superboy. Seigel and Shuster sold the character outright to DC for $130 bucks and the rights to continue providing DC with new Superman stories. And they sold Superboy to them in 1948 for nearly $100,000.

In today's comics, though, many creators retain the rights to their original characters, yet have them published through companies like DC/Vertigo or Image. I assume that would be akin to the "license" option you were talking about.
 
2012-10-18 02:54:37 PM  
Honest question:
What's the oldest character/story that's still copyright/trademarked?
Off the top of my head, Public Domain:
Christmas Carol
Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer
Sleepy Hollow
War of the Worlds (I think)
 
2012-10-18 02:58:24 PM  

Trocadero: Honest question:
What's the oldest character/story that's still copyright/trademarked?
Off the top of my head, Public Domain:
Christmas Carol
Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer
Sleepy Hollow
War of the Worlds (I think)


Sherlock Holmes is still under copyright in the US. I think Peter Pan is also still under copyright in the US.
 
2012-10-18 03:02:20 PM  
A pair of poor teenage Jews getting fleeced by rich old Jews. It was a day that ended with a "y", I believe.
 
2012-10-18 03:07:32 PM  

Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.


media.tumblr.com

/not that I have any particular stake in this argument, I don't really like the Superman character
 
2012-10-18 03:09:49 PM  
Let me just say sincerely - fark you, Sonny Bono.
 
2012-10-18 03:12:24 PM  
Just another reason why you should never sell your rights in a piece of intellectual property for a straight cash-only figure but should always have some % of future earnings/profits in the mix - just in case someone figures out how to make a lot of money off it.
 
2012-10-18 03:12:40 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

[media.tumblr.com image 492x538]

/not that I have any particular stake in this argument, I don't really like the Superman character


I'm torn as well.

DC Comics sucks, and doesn't know what to do with any of the characters they own.

However, the families and their lawyer are going for a cash grab.

Therefore, Image comics deserves everything.
 
2012-10-18 03:17:20 PM  

cefm: Just another reason why you should never sell your rights in a piece of intellectual property for a straight cash-only figure but should always have some % of future earnings/profits in the mix - just in case someone figures out how to make a lot of money off it.


Make sure it's revenue, not profit. Hollywood Accounting makes Net Points absolutely irrelevant.
 
2012-10-18 03:17:30 PM  

Kit Fister: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

I dunno, until the artist and family of the artist are all gone, with no heirs to receive the work? I mean, seriously. If I create something, what gives anyone the right to come in like vultures to take it and use it after the legal protection runs out? It's my creation, my work.


It's your work. When you're dead, what the hell does it matter? You want to provide for your kids, make money off the thing when you're still kicking.

It isn't enough that wealth should be inherited, so should intellectual property? I see no sense in that. Why should a child who may have no familiarity with the work or even the trade be the copyright holder? It makes less sense than the publisher holding the right.

And in this case, the copyright didn't matter until the work was successful. It seems like an easy out for the creator. I can sell my IP rights upon publication, and upon success I can sue to win them back. It makes the publisher a sucker.
 
2012-10-18 03:18:07 PM  
So I got curious and came across this:

vonallan.com
 
2012-10-18 03:20:51 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So I got curious and came across this:

[vonallan.com image 800x284]


Comics contributed to their own downfall by marginalizing themselves by taking their product off the shelves of convenience stores and newsstands and relegating themselves to the direct market ghetto.
 
2012-10-18 03:24:34 PM  

moothemagiccow: And in this case, the copyright didn't matter until the work was successful. It seems like an easy out for the creator. I can sell my IP rights upon publication, and upon success I can sue to win them back. It makes the publisher a sucker.


Actually this is exactly the reason the renewal right worked the way it did - to allow authors who create a work, license it for peanuts and then find that it is ridiculously popular to have publishers over a barrel. Since there is usually a disparity of power favoring publishers/labels over artists, the renewal right system was intended, in part to help right this.
 
2012-10-18 03:26:27 PM  

cefm: Just another reason why you should never sell your rights in a piece of intellectual property for a straight cash-only figure but should always have some % of future earnings/profits in the mix - just in case someone figures out how to make a lot of money off it.


Except even if they did take a cut of the profits, unless they had awesome lawyers, I am sure profits would be defined as the money left over after you paid for all expenses (printing, ink, distribution), plus employee salaries plus taxes plus dividend payments. So they would probably just as easily end up with nothing (like many people in movies who take a cut of "profits"). What they really should have asked for is a percentage of the cover price of each issue of superman sold. Then again if you are an out of work comics creator in the middle of the great depression, how much bargaining power do you think you would have?
 
2012-10-18 03:26:43 PM  

moothemagiccow: It isn't enough that wealth should be inherited, so should intellectual property? I see no sense in that. Why should a child who may have no familiarity with the work or even the trade be the copyright holder? It makes less sense than the publisher holding the right.


Also, i meant to note: i take it, from your statement regarding wealth that you believe that no property should be inherited? Because the same argument could be made for any physical good. If so, coolsies - its a fringe position but you can believe what you like. If not, how do you reconcile the difference?
 
2012-10-18 03:27:19 PM  

Teiritzamna: moothemagiccow: And in this case, the copyright didn't matter until the work was successful. It seems like an easy out for the creator. I can sell my IP rights upon publication, and upon success I can sue to win them back. It makes the publisher a sucker.

Actually this is exactly the reason the renewal right worked the way it did - to allow authors who create a work, license it for peanuts and then find that it is ridiculously popular to have publishers over a barrel. Since there is usually a disparity of power favoring publishers/labels over artists, the renewal right system was intended, in part to help right this.


So, should creators have to pay the corporations back if the property they sell turns out to be a failure?
 
2012-10-18 03:28:16 PM  

mechgreg: Except even if they did take a cut of the profits, unless they had awesome lawyers, I am sure profits would be defined as the money left over after you paid for all expenses (printing, ink, distribution), plus employee salaries plus taxes plus dividend payments.


Well if you get your own lawyers you could say no and define the royalty rights you wanted.

Then again if you are an out of work comics creator in the middle of the great depression, how much bargaining power do you think you would have?

Yup, there's the real issue, right there.
 
2012-10-18 03:29:24 PM  

mechgreg: cefm: Just another reason why you should never sell your rights in a piece of intellectual property for a straight cash-only figure but should always have some % of future earnings/profits in the mix - just in case someone figures out how to make a lot of money off it.

Except even if they did take a cut of the profits, unless they had awesome lawyers, I am sure profits would be defined as the money left over after you paid for all expenses (printing, ink, distribution), plus employee salaries plus taxes plus dividend payments. So they would probably just as easily end up with nothing (like many people in movies who take a cut of "profits"). What they really should have asked for is a percentage of the cover price of each issue of superman sold. Then again if you are an out of work comics creator in the middle of the great depression, how much bargaining power do you think you would have?


Siegel and Shuster had enough bargaining power to get the right to have them and their studio provide most of the new Superman material over the next decade, which earned them roughly $400,000 each per year.

...$400,000. Each. In 1940s money.
 
2012-10-18 03:33:00 PM  

Teiritzamna: mechgreg: Except even if they did take a cut of the profits, unless they had awesome lawyers, I am sure profits would be defined as the money left over after you paid for all expenses (printing, ink, distribution), plus employee salaries plus taxes plus dividend payments.

Well if you get your own lawyers you could say no and define the royalty rights you wanted.

Then again if you are an out of work comics creator in the middle of the great depression, how much bargaining power do you think you would have?

Yup, there's the real issue, right there.


Also, Bob Kane had enough power to keep his name on the Batman books well into the 1960s, long after he stopped actually writing or drawing anything Batman. Another part of the bargain was that he would always be credited with creating the character.

And William Moulton Marston and his estate had a deal in place with DC until the 1990s that a certain amount of issues had to be published of Wonder Woman each year, or the rights to the character would revert from DC to the estate.

The creators who worked smart had more power in the 30s and 40s than you think they did. They weren't all naive boys being screwed by the big bad company.
 
2012-10-18 03:33:05 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Teiritzamna: moothemagiccow: And in this case, the copyright didn't matter until the work was successful. It seems like an easy out for the creator. I can sell my IP rights upon publication, and upon success I can sue to win them back. It makes the publisher a sucker.

Actually this is exactly the reason the renewal right worked the way it did - to allow authors who create a work, license it for peanuts and then find that it is ridiculously popular to have publishers over a barrel. Since there is usually a disparity of power favoring publishers/labels over artists, the renewal right system was intended, in part to help right this.

So, should creators have to pay the corporations back if the property they sell turns out to be a failure?


if the copyright statute had such a provision, i suppose they would. However, the previous versions of the statute had a provision specifically crafted to give an extra right to the artists because congress feared that they were the little guy and would get screwed more often than not.

Also, there was no unfair speculation here - the publisher/label knew the term that they were buying, and knew that if the work was successful they would have to renegotiate in a few years time. If, as you suggest, Congress made a law that artists would have to refund any benefit they got from a contract if their work didn't pan out, i assume much fewer artists would sell their works and have them published. I don't know why you would wright such a law, but you could always ask your congressman.
 
2012-10-18 03:34:45 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: The creators who worked smart had more power in the 30s and 40s than you think they did. They weren't all naive boys being screwed by the big bad company.


Never said they didn't, was just explaining the legislative purpose behind the renewal right that was being discussed.
 
2012-10-18 03:35:58 PM  

Teiritzamna: moothemagiccow: It isn't enough that wealth should be inherited, so should intellectual property? I see no sense in that. Why should a child who may have no familiarity with the work or even the trade be the copyright holder? It makes less sense than the publisher holding the right.

Also, i meant to note: i take it, from your statement regarding wealth that you believe that no property should be inherited? Because the same argument could be made for any physical good. If so, coolsies - its a fringe position but you can believe what you like. If not, how do you reconcile the difference?


I was wrestling with that bit myself. I'm pretty bored.
 
2012-10-18 03:37:40 PM  

Teiritzamna: FirstNationalBastard: The creators who worked smart had more power in the 30s and 40s than you think they did. They weren't all naive boys being screwed by the big bad company.

Never said they didn't, was just explaining the legislative purpose behind the renewal right that was being discussed.


I think I was responding more to the same post you were...

But anyway, the stereotype of the naive 1940s kid being screwed by the savvy company man is way off base. The smart creators made sweet deals. Others didn't. And it didn't stop in 1940s. After seeing the result of 40 years of bad deals, guys like Alan Moore still signed shiatty deals in the 1980s, giving DC the rights to Watchmen as long as the book stayed in print.
 
2012-10-18 03:40:28 PM  

moothemagiccow: Kit Fister: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

I dunno, until the artist and family of the artist are all gone, with no heirs to receive the work? I mean, seriously. If I create something, what gives anyone the right to come in like vultures to take it and use it after the legal protection runs out? It's my creation, my work.

It's your work. When you're dead, what the hell does it matter? You want to provide for your kids, make money off the thing when you're still kicking.

It isn't enough that wealth should be inherited, so should intellectual property? I see no sense in that. Why should a child who may have no familiarity with the work or even the trade be the copyright holder? It makes less sense than the publisher holding the right.


Yes, you created the idea, but it is also DC that is putting the money and effort into actually generating the money off of this idea. Joseph Shuster co-created Superman, but also put effort into actually creating the comics that developed the character. Siegel and Shuster actually *worked* and invested time and effort into Superman and should be properly compensated for it.

The rest of the estate, not so much.

Perhaps his heirs should get off their collective asses and actually create something of value themselves, so they don't have to keep milking Superman to which they are contributing absolutely nothing to.
 
2012-10-18 03:42:43 PM  
swotti.starmedia.com

KRYPTONIITEEEEE YEAAAAAAAH !!!!!!
 
2012-10-18 03:49:30 PM  

Teiritzamna: moothemagiccow: It isn't enough that wealth should be inherited, so should intellectual property? I see no sense in that. Why should a child who may have no familiarity with the work or even the trade be the copyright holder? It makes less sense than the publisher holding the right.

Also, i meant to note: i take it, from your statement regarding wealth that you believe that no property should be inherited? Because the same argument could be made for any physical good. If so, coolsies - its a fringe position but you can believe what you like. If not, how do you reconcile the difference?


But the interesting part is this - public domain art is actually pretty cool, and character licensing allowed comic characters like Superman to be the household name they are today. Imagine if he were ridden into the ground by Siegel and passed off to some nephew like newspaper comic strips Gasoline Alley
or Beetle Bailey. Superman could've been easily forgotten like Krazy Kat. Instead he's been ridden into the ground by countless authors and artists.

Copyright is more or less writhing right now thanks to immense advances in communications. People make Star Wars fan films and Super Mario fan games to some acclaim. I'm sure someone could make something great out of, say, my parent's house, but it wouldn't be appreciated on the same level. The difference is intellectual property is ideas, and ideas can benefit everyone when they're shared. It's not like land where it might revert to the state or county - it reverts to the public. Would Dickens, Wells, Beethoven or Mozart still be as popular if their publishing was limited to their heirs?
 
2012-10-18 03:53:14 PM  

Kit Fister: FirstNationalBastard: Kit Fister: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

I dunno, until the artist and family of the artist are all gone, with no heirs to receive the work? I mean, seriously. If I create something, what gives anyone the right to come in like vultures to take it and use it after the legal protection runs out? It's my creation, my work.

But if you sell that work, and even sell it again a second time, should your family still make money off of it?

To use the family business analogy, if you sell your Grandpa's little general store out to Starbucks, should you expect to get a cut of all the profits Starbucks makes at that location?

If you *sell* the rights, and sign a legal document stating that you no longer own them, then no. You sold out the rights, period.

If you *license* the rights, or sell a share of the rights, then you should be compensated/receive a cut of the profits commensurate with the license agreement or your retained share of the rights. So, for example, if I sell you 50% interest in my ownership of Kit Fisterman, then I should still see 50% of the profits (unless we negotiated and agreed otherwise). If I licensed my rights to you in an agreement that says you have the rights to use and produce works using my IP in exchange for X, then I expect X from your proceeds.

Using your analogy, i'm a dumbass if I sell grandpa's little general store to Starbucks. I get the price of the business/land/whatever, and I relinquish all claims to that business*.

If I license Starbucks to use Grandpa's Little General Store™, including location and other ancillary items related to it, then I expect to receive whatever profits and perks were negotiated as part of the licensing deal. Likewise, if i sell 50% interest in the TM/CR, then I expect 50% of whatever is brought in by anyone exercising that TM/CR.


YOU CANNOT SELL THE RIGHT OF REVERTER. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SELL THE RIGHT OF REVERTER. GOOGLE RIGHT OF REVERTER
 
2012-10-18 03:56:42 PM  

moothemagiccow: Teiritzamna: moothemagiccow: It isn't enough that wealth should be inherited, so should intellectual property? I see no sense in that. Why should a child who may have no familiarity with the work or even the trade be the copyright holder? It makes less sense than the publisher holding the right.

Also, i meant to note: i take it, from your statement regarding wealth that you believe that no property should be inherited? Because the same argument could be made for any physical good. If so, coolsies - its a fringe position but you can believe what you like. If not, how do you reconcile the difference?

But the interesting part is this - public domain art is actually pretty cool, and character licensing allowed comic characters like Superman to be the household name they are today. Imagine if he were ridden into the ground by Siegel and passed off to some nephew like newspaper comic strips Gasoline Alley
or Beetle Bailey. Superman could've been easily forgotten like Krazy Kat. Instead he's been ridden into the ground by countless authors and artists.

Copyright is more or less writhing right now thanks to immense advances in communications. People make Star Wars fan films and Super Mario fan games to some acclaim. I'm sure someone could make something great out of, say, my parent's house, but it wouldn't be appreciated on the same level. The difference is intellectual property is ideas, and ideas can benefit everyone when they're shared. It's not like land where it might revert to the state or county - it reverts to the public. Would Dickens, Wells, Beethoven or Mozart still be as popular if their publishing was limited to their heirs?


well now this seems like an argument about the term of copyright, not its heritability. As such i agree with you that the present length of the term granted by congress is likely far too long, and shows the annoying influence of the European concept of IP as a moral right* rather than as a quid pro quo with the state to gain a monopoly for a short time so that expressions are created and then consigned to the public domain.

/*in that the Copyright Extension act was an attempt to harmonize our IP laws with those of Europe, which already granted life +70.
 
2012-10-18 04:14:36 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: the character should be in Public Domain in the first place.


There needs to be a compromise on copy right law. You get your copyright for free for the first X years, but afterwards you have to pay a considerable fee (say $10000 a year per copyright).

It would allow businesses that depend on their intellectual property to exist like WB and Disney, while allowing the rest to enter public domain
 
2012-10-18 04:15:43 PM  

halB: Kit Fister: FirstNationalBastard: Kit Fister: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: ***snip***
YOU CANNOT SELL THE RIGHT OF REVERTER. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SELL THE RIGHT OF REVERTER. GOOGLE RIGHT OF REVERTER


y U mad?
 
2012-10-18 04:33:10 PM  

Rufus Lee King: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x774]


Willie Elder was a wise man.
 
2012-10-18 04:34:48 PM  
www.geekosystem.com
 
2012-10-18 04:40:03 PM  

moothemagiccow: Kit Fister: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

I dunno, until the artist and family of the artist are all gone, with no heirs to receive the work? I mean, seriously. If I create something, what gives anyone the right to come in like vultures to take it and use it after the legal protection runs out? It's my creation, my work.

It's your work. When you're dead, what the hell does it matter? You want to provide for your kids, make money off the thing when you're still kicking.

It isn't enough that wealth should be inherited, so should intellectual property? I see no sense in that. Why should a child who may have no familiarity with the work or even the trade be the copyright holder? It makes less sense than the publisher holding the right.

And in this case, the copyright didn't matter until the work was successful. It seems like an easy out for the creator. I can sell my IP rights upon publication, and upon success I can sue to win them back. It makes the publisher a sucker.


It matters because people who create and sell ideas have the right to pass on the revenue generated by those ideas to their families. The heirs of Henry Ford own his creation. The heirs of JK Rowling own hers.
 
2012-10-18 04:41:29 PM  

CheatCommando: Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: Has it been said that Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway?

That statement has been repeated so many times now that it has voided its own copyright.


And really what advantage would there to a character like superman being public domain? I mean to me it would just lead to a bunch of crappy knockoff super man stories, movies and toys, that would just dilute the market and probably make everything crappy. I mean I used to be a member of a mail order dvd rental service in Canada. I rented a ton of old movies because new movies were impossible to get. I saw a ton of Hitchcock stuff, which was awesome. A bunch of his early british movies are in public domain, and guess what. The DVD's of those movies totally suck, which I have to assume is because since anyone can put the dvd out and sell it, there is not much of an advantage to putting it out and making it look good, or adding a bunch of nice features. How would that not be the same for superman movies if the character was public domain?
 
2012-10-18 05:15:28 PM  

mechgreg: CheatCommando: Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: Has it been said that Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway?

That statement has been repeated so many times now that it has voided its own copyright.

And really what advantage would there to a character like superman being public domain? I mean to me it would just lead to a bunch of crappy knockoff super man stories, movies and toys, that would just dilute the market and probably make everything crappy. I mean I used to be a member of a mail order dvd rental service in Canada. I rented a ton of old movies because new movies were impossible to get. I saw a ton of Hitchcock stuff, which was awesome. A bunch of his early british movies are in public domain, and guess what. The DVD's of those movies totally suck, which I have to assume is because since anyone can put the dvd out and sell it, there is not much of an advantage to putting it out and making it look good, or adding a bunch of nice features. How would that not be the same for superman movies if the character was public domain?


I'll take this moment to repeat my earlier point that it really doesn't matter if Superman is in public domain, since there tons of legal knockoffs (Captain Marvel*, Mighty Mouse, every single flying brick character) that it appears that all you have to do is call him Mark Mint from Argon, and as long as you don't use trademarked phrases you're golden. *Captain Marvel of course had his legal troubles with Superman

That said, public domain doesn't have to make for crap. Why do you think we get so many remakes of 19th century British literature, Shakespeare and the like? Or Frankenstein (as long as he doesn't look like the neckbolt Universal one) Or Dracula? Superman may not be public domain, but he might as well be.
 
2012-10-18 05:16:06 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So I got curious and came across this:

[vonallan.com image 800x284]


So we just need to adjust minimum wage based on comic book prices, that's all. Problem solved!


mechgreg: And really what advantage would there to a character like superman being public domain? I mean to me it would just lead to a bunch of crappy knockoff super man stories, movies and toys, that would just dilute the market and probably make everything crappy.


The likelihood of a ton of crap stuff being produced is high, but it is also likely that you will get the occasional awesome. I think it's a fair trade considering awesome is few and far between in the protected-property regime.

What you describe with the DVDs is of little consequence though - they were just repackaging what was already made, and that's not what public domain is really about. It's about being able to use the ideas, characters and settings freely in your own derivative works.
=Smidge=
 
2012-10-18 05:39:53 PM  

T.M.S.: It matters because people who create and sell ideas have the right to pass on the revenue generated by those ideas to their families. The heirs of Henry Ford own his creation. The heirs of JK Rowling own hers.


Ford built a company. That's a bit different, but maybe you're on to something there.

And the "revenue generated by those ideas" is not the same thing as the IP. Will Rowling's heirs get her copyright? They already stand to inherit the "revenue," by which I think you mean profit made during her lifetime. Do you mean the royalties until her copyright expires?
 
2012-10-18 06:01:53 PM  

ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.


It should be, but the idea of public domain has gone the way of the Dodo now that Disney has basically gotten carte blanc to permanently extend its copyrights thanks to a pliable congress.
 
2012-10-18 06:19:45 PM  

Kit Fister: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

I dunno, until the artist and family of the artist are all gone, with no heirs to receive the work? I mean, seriously. If I create something, what gives anyone the right to come in like vultures to take it and use it after the legal protection runs out? It's my creation, my work.


You have got to be joking.

The entire point is that your legal rights to a work are not eternal. Copyright was invented as a limited protection in order to allow artists to profit from their work without competition, essentially giving you a temporary monopoly, with the explicit understanding that your work would return to the public domain afterwards. It is an exchange between society, in the form of the government, and the artist.

That's the function of copyright. If you object to that, you're objecting to the very concept of copyright. It is an artificial legal construct that's meant to assist artists. It was never intended to be some sort of fundamental right that exists in perpetuity, and with good reason. If it worked the way you wanted it to, we'd be paying royalties to Shakespeares estate and claimants to the Beowulf estate would be coming out of the woodworks.

More to the point, without that government monopoly on your work, you wouldn't have any protection. If you want the protection, you have to accept the terms. Unless, of course, you're a major corporation who can just get their tame congressmen to extend it endlessly.
 
2012-10-18 06:21:18 PM  

imashark: Wow, I didn't realize until today that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyrights to [life of the author]+70 years or 120 years from creation/95 years from publication for corporate authorship.


Sonny Bono was a CONGRESSMAN??????? :-O

Seriously????????

Is this THE Sonny Bono or is there another one?

 
2012-10-18 06:23:56 PM  

moothemagiccow: T.M.S.: It matters because people who create and sell ideas have the right to pass on the revenue generated by those ideas to their families. The heirs of Henry Ford own his creation. The heirs of JK Rowling own hers.

Ford built a company. That's a bit different, but maybe you're on to something there.

And the "revenue generated by those ideas" is not the same thing as the IP. Will Rowling's heirs get her copyright? They already stand to inherit the "revenue," by which I think you mean profit made during her lifetime. Do you mean the royalties until her copyright expires?


Rowling built a company too. And her company licenses her ideas to make money.

Yes I mean the royalties her ideas generate. That belongs to her and her family. He being alive should not be a factor. It would be wrong to deny her kids that Income after her death. The same way it would be wrong to take the Ford Motor Company away from his children when he died.
 
2012-10-18 06:28:38 PM  

WorthNoting: imashark: Wow, I didn't realize until today that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyrights to [life of the author]+70 years or 120 years from creation/95 years from publication for corporate authorship.

Sonny Bono was a CONGRESSMAN??????? :-O

Seriously????????

Is this THE Sonny Bono or is there another one?


Nope, the guy who sang "I've Got You Babe" was a congressman until he accidentally went all George of the Jungle.
 
2012-10-18 06:36:27 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: bukketmaster: Especially Byrne and Donner.

You could make the case that without Byrne the X-Men movie never gets made and possibly the whole slew of recent superhero movies but his contribution to the Superman mythos and the character's popularity is negligible.

For a while, Byrne's Superman was the definitive Superman.

Then the fanboy wankers came in and started reverting everything to the lame-ass Silver Age version that was retconned out of existence because it was a joke.


B-Zam! Troof, biatches!
 
2012-10-18 06:42:33 PM  

un4gvn666: You even have your rivals, Marvel, showing you how it's done, and done WELL


The DC Universe trailer is a good guide on what a Justice League movie should be. It manages to tell a better story, and pack in more action, in 6 minutes than most of the DC movies have managed to do in 2 hours.

If you can't clear that bar, don't even bother, m'kay?
 
2012-10-18 06:52:49 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: The entire point is that your legal rights to a work are not eternal. Copyright was invented as a limited protection in order to allow artists to profit from their work without competition, essentially giving you a temporary monopoly, with the explicit understanding that your work would return to the public domain afterwards. It is an exchange between society, in the form of the government, and the artist.


So much farking THIS.

Copyright was originally 28 years, maximum. You got 14 years, and could file to have that extended by another 14 years. After that, public domain, baby.

This life + 70 years bullshiat is going to kill our culture. It's exceptionally disgusting when corporations raid the public domain for source material and then lock the product away. Taking and not giving back isn't cool.


And, for the record, I derive most of my income through copyright (software, photos, and writing).
 
2012-10-18 06:52:52 PM  

clyph: un4gvn666: You even have your rivals, Marvel, showing you how it's done, and done WELL

The DC Universe trailer is a good guide on what a Justice League movie should be. It manages to tell a better story, and pack in more action, in 6 minutes than most of the DC movies have managed to do in 2 hours.

If you can't clear that bar, don't even bother, m'kay?


Y'know, I think the difference between the two companies is that Marvel has the idea to do movies about their characters first, then gets the movies made if the story is decent, where DCWB says "We need to use something from that IP Farm of ours so we don't have to pay for new ideas... someone get AWESOM-O to write a generic movie and spin the wheel to see which superhero we'll plug in as the main character!"
 
2012-10-18 06:55:53 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: WorthNoting: imashark: Wow, I didn't realize until today that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyrights to [life of the author]+70 years or 120 years from creation/95 years from publication for corporate authorship.

Sonny Bono was a CONGRESSMAN??????? :-O

Seriously????????

Is this THE Sonny Bono or is there another one?

Nope, the guy who sang "I've Got You Babe" was a congressman until he accidentally went all George of the Jungle.



Golly!
Had heard he was mayor of Palm Springs or something, but a Congressman????

/has thought for years that the Congressional water coolers are being "dosed"
//but THIS explains a lot
 
2012-10-18 06:57:46 PM  

Kit Fister: I mean, seriously. If I create something, what gives anyone the right to come in like vultures to take it and use it after the legal protection runs out?


Because the legal protection ran out.
 
2012-10-18 07:00:52 PM  

WorthNoting: FirstNationalBastard: WorthNoting: imashark: Wow, I didn't realize until today that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyrights to [life of the author]+70 years or 120 years from creation/95 years from publication for corporate authorship.

Sonny Bono was a CONGRESSMAN??????? :-O

Seriously????????

Is this THE Sonny Bono or is there another one?

Nope, the guy who sang "I've Got You Babe" was a congressman until he accidentally went all George of the Jungle.


Golly!
Had heard he was mayor of Palm Springs or something, but a Congressman????

/has thought for years that the Congressional water coolers are being "dosed"
//but THIS explains a lot


And when he died, his wife was elected to serve out his term, and has been serving in congress ever since.

She's also kind of hot, which I guess is as good a reason to elect someone as any.

2.bp.blogspot.com

/BTW, She was one of the people who helped push through the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, since Sonny was dead by then.
 
2012-10-18 07:20:07 PM  

WorthNoting: Sonny Bono was a CONGRESSMAN??????? :-O


"Weird, right?"

static01.mediaite.com
 
2012-10-18 07:27:15 PM  
FTFA: "We respectfully disagree with [the order's] factual and legal conclusions," he said in an e-mailed statement. "It is surprising given that the judge appeared to emphatically agree with our position at the summary judgment hearing."

Someone doesn't seem to understand how summary judgment works....

/For the confused: When one side demands summary judgment before a trial, the judge looks at the other side's claim in the most favorable light possible, and only grants it if there is absolutely no case at all. If Mr. Toberoff had demanded summary judgment, that denial would have looked a lot more favorable to DC.
 
2012-10-18 08:24:53 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: WorthNoting: Sonny Bono was a CONGRESSMAN??????? :-O

"Weird, right?"

static01.mediaite.com



Is that someone off the tv show "Loveboat' ?

Congressman too, I take it.

Positive face recognition without prior political history has gotta be helpful.

Or even the opposite. . .
i2.listal.com
It's All In How Ya Play It!



/guess I shouldn't jump to conclusions without first checking out their voting record
//so easy to access online
///or. . .I could keep farking around here on Fark
////decisions. . .decisions. . .


/STILL misses Krazy Kat
 
2012-10-18 09:14:50 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Trocadero: Honest question:
What's the oldest character/story that's still copyright/trademarked?
Off the top of my head, Public Domain:
Christmas Carol
Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer
Sleepy Hollow
War of the Worlds (I think)

Sherlock Holmes is still under copyright in the US. I think Peter Pan is also still under copyright in the US.


The Bono act sets copyright at 95 years from creation regardless of publication, so Superman, created in 1938, should remain out of public domain until 2033.

JM Barrie's characters are in public domain, as is Sherlock Holmes (hence all the different interpretations out there). The rights to Peter Pan the stage production remain in the perpetual ownership of the Great Ormond St. Children's Hospital Barrie left them to, by special act of Parliment.

On the other hand, *Disney's* version of Peter Pan -the story, the characters and likenesses thereof is under US copyright...as is every thing else Disney claims it invented, including Winnie the Pooh, Pinocchio, Bambi and all the other ancient fairy tales that are the premise for their biggest properties that are derivative works. But, as most people are most familiar with the Disney versions, and they have the biggest lawyers, they seem to win the day in court time after time. Don't fark with the mouse.
 
2012-10-18 09:41:29 PM  

eggrolls: FirstNationalBastard: Trocadero: Honest question:
What's the oldest character/story that's still copyright/trademarked?
Off the top of my head, Public Domain:
Christmas Carol
Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer
Sleepy Hollow
War of the Worlds (I think)

Sherlock Holmes is still under copyright in the US. I think Peter Pan is also still under copyright in the US.

The Bono act sets copyright at 95 years from creation regardless of publication, so Superman, created in 1938, should remain out of public domain until 2033.

JM Barrie's characters are in public domain, as is Sherlock Holmes (hence all the different interpretations out there). The rights to Peter Pan the stage production remain in the perpetual ownership of the Great Ormond St. Children's Hospital Barrie left them to, by special act of Parliment.

On the other hand, *Disney's* version of Peter Pan -the story, the characters and likenesses thereof is under US copyright...as is every thing else Disney claims it invented, including Winnie the Pooh, Pinocchio, Bambi and all the other ancient fairy tales that are the premise for their biggest properties that are derivative works. But, as most people are most familiar with the Disney versions, and they have the biggest lawyers, they seem to win the day in court time after time. Don't fark with the mouse.


I can't see that. Sure they are zealous in protecting their material but look at the facts.

Among the titles of the top 25 Disney films alone there are numerous alternate stage productions and adaptations of Peter Pan, Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Alladin, Little Mermaid, Rapunzel, and Robbin Hood. These shows have nothing to do with Disney and they have no power in court to stop the production of any of those shows.
 
2012-10-18 09:44:23 PM  

WorthNoting: imashark: Wow, I didn't realize until today that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyrights to [life of the author]+70 years or 120 years from creation/95 years from publication for corporate authorship.

Sonny Bono was a CONGRESSMAN??????? :-O

Seriously????????

Is this THE Sonny Bono or is there another one?


Yeah until he ran into a tree and died. Then his non-cher wife took over his congressional seat. That's california for you.
 
2012-10-18 10:23:36 PM  

WorthNoting: FirstNationalBastard: WorthNoting: imashark: Wow, I didn't realize until today that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyrights to [life of the author]+70 years or 120 years from creation/95 years from publication for corporate authorship.

Sonny Bono was a CONGRESSMAN??????? :-O

Seriously????????

Is this THE Sonny Bono or is there another one?

Nope, the guy who sang "I've Got You Babe" was a congressman until he accidentally went all George of the Jungle.

Golly!
Had heard he was mayor of Palm Springs or something, but a Congressman????

/has thought for years that the Congressional water coolers are being "dosed"
//but THIS explains a lot


moothemagiccow: Yeah until he ran into a tree and died. Then his non-cher wife took over his congressional seat. That's california for you.


Say what you want about Sony Bono′s Copyright Extension Act, but the man himself was a great entertainer and a true statesman.

Okay, well, maybe not so much of a statesman.

And maybe a mediocre at best entertainer.

But hey, he did do a killer impersonation of Michael Kennedy!
 
2012-10-18 10:51:38 PM  

ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?


Indefinite.

Let us say that I open up a small business selling sandwiches topped with a secret sauce. Upon my death the business goes to my son, and upon his death it goes to his son, etc. The government cannot step in after X number of years and declare that I have to give out the recipe of my secret sauce to everyone in the world so that they can start making their own version of it. I do not think that a copyright should be any different.
 
2012-10-18 11:42:59 PM  

Mock26: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

Indefinite.

Let us say that I open up a small business selling sandwiches topped with a secret sauce. Upon my death the business goes to my son, and upon his death it goes to his son, etc. The government cannot step in after X number of years and declare that I have to give out the recipe of my secret sauce to everyone in the world so that they can start making their own version of it. I do not think that a copyright should be any different.


The government declares that the copyright exists in the first place, so it can stop doing it whenever it damn well pleases.
 
2012-10-19 12:54:44 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: WorthNoting: Sonny Bono was a CONGRESSMAN??????? :-O

"Weird, right?"


This thread will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we'll be lucky to live through it.
 
2012-10-19 12:57:15 AM  

T.M.S.: eggrolls: FirstNationalBastard: Trocadero: Honest question:
What's the oldest character/story that's still copyright/trademarked?
Off the top of my head, Public Domain:
Christmas Carol
Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer
Sleepy Hollow
War of the Worlds (I think)

Sherlock Holmes is still under copyright in the US. I think Peter Pan is also still under copyright in the US.

The Bono act sets copyright at 95 years from creation regardless of publication, so Superman, created in 1938, should remain out of public domain until 2033.

JM Barrie's characters are in public domain, as is Sherlock Holmes (hence all the different interpretations out there). The rights to Peter Pan the stage production remain in the perpetual ownership of the Great Ormond St. Children's Hospital Barrie left them to, by special act of Parliment.

On the other hand, *Disney's* version of Peter Pan -the story, the characters and likenesses thereof is under US copyright...as is every thing else Disney claims it invented, including Winnie the Pooh, Pinocchio, Bambi and all the other ancient fairy tales that are the premise for their biggest properties that are derivative works. But, as most people are most familiar with the Disney versions, and they have the biggest lawyers, they seem to win the day in court time after time. Don't fark with the mouse.

I can't see that. Sure they are zealous in protecting their material but look at the facts.

Among the titles of the top 25 Disney films alone there are numerous alternate stage productions and adaptations of Peter Pan, Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Alladin, Little Mermaid, Rapunzel, and Robbin Hood. These shows have nothing to do with Disney and they have no power in court to stop the production of any of those shows.


Agreed, they don't typically go after people who repeat the source material. But if your day care center paints a picture of a fawn talking to a rabbit and a skunk, or a blonde princess, look out.
 
2012-10-19 07:02:34 AM  

LoneWolf343: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

Indefinite.

Let us say that I open up a small business selling sandwiches topped with a secret sauce. Upon my death the business goes to my son, and upon his death it goes to his son, etc. The government cannot step in after X number of years and declare that I have to give out the recipe of my secret sauce to everyone in the world so that they can start making their own version of it. I do not think that a copyright should be any different.

The government declares that the copyright exists in the first place, so it can stop doing it whenever it damn well pleases.


And as long as the copyright exists I will support making it last longer and longer and longer and longer.
 
2012-10-19 08:41:52 AM  

Mock26: Let us say that I open up a small business selling sandwiches topped with a secret sauce. Upon my death the business goes to my son, and upon his death it goes to his son, etc. The government cannot step in after X number of years and declare that I have to give out the recipe of my secret sauce to everyone in the world so that they can start making their own version of it. I do not think that a copyright should be any different.


congratulations! I have seen threads where everyone mistakes patent for copyright, or copyright for trademark, but this is the first time i have seen someone mistake Trade Secret for Copyright. Finally, the universe seems complete!

Each of the four IP doctrines has different goals, purposes and principles, so analogizing from TS to Copyright is . . . well . . . it is like saying that because your iPad works a certain way, so should your toaster. I mean they are both electronics.
 
2012-10-19 09:43:10 AM  

Teiritzamna: Mock26: Let us say that I open up a small business selling sandwiches topped with a secret sauce. Upon my death the business goes to my son, and upon his death it goes to his son, etc. The government cannot step in after X number of years and declare that I have to give out the recipe of my secret sauce to everyone in the world so that they can start making their own version of it. I do not think that a copyright should be any different.

congratulations! I have seen threads where everyone mistakes patent for copyright, or copyright for trademark, but this is the first time i have seen someone mistake Trade Secret for Copyright. Finally, the universe seems complete!

Each of the four IP doctrines has different goals, purposes and principles, so analogizing from TS to Copyright is . . . well . . . it is like saying that because your iPad works a certain way, so should your toaster. I mean they are both electronics.


It's a perfectly valid example of the absurdity of nationalizing private property. No need to be pedantic about it.
 
2012-10-19 10:00:45 AM  

T.M.S.: It's a perfectly valid example of the absurdity of nationalizing private property. No need to be pedantic about it.


Sorry. 1) this is my job and they pay us for pedantry, so it sometimes leaks out. 2) mixing up the IP doctrines is like nails on a blackboard to me, its like saying "your" when you mean "you're" but x1000, so i tend to launch. again, sorry.

As to the point however, IP is, in its nascent form, a public good. I mean that in the technical sense in that the expression of an idea, or an invention, is both non-rivalrous and non-excludable: I can use the concept, and my use does not deprive you of it, and once it is created, you cannot easily prevent others from using it freely. Public goods, therefore have huge free rider problems, and are thus deeply distinct from market goods, like a TV or a beer. If you have a TV i cannot also have the same TV (ok we could be joint owners, but work with me here) and it is much easier to restrict the use of a physical good to those that pay for it.

To fix the non-excluable problem, we turn to government (ask an economist and they will tell you fixing public goods problems is what government is for) and ask it to turn public goods into something else. So government makes a law saying that if anyone uses your public good without your permission, you can sue them. This transforms IP into a product that is still non-rivalrous, but that is now excludable. We call such goods club goods (think a membership to a club, you can restrict who gets one, but usually your being a member doesn't restrict my being a member).

This blather is just a way of saying that for IP to be monetizable at all, it already must be nationalized, as you put it. Otherwise all we have are trade secrets, because the only way to protect an idea is to jealously hide it from everyone. Patent was invented specifically to avoid this problem (everyone constantly re-inventing the wheel). Copyright exists because without some protection not as much art will be created because it is so hard to monetize (prior to copyright we mostly relied upon patronage).

Government is granting a gift to creators, but is only doing so because it increases disclosure of expressions of ideas to the public. Thus, limiting the monopoly granted is essential. It is part of the quid pro quo - government grants creators a limited monopoly, and at the end, everyone benefits from a richer public domain. The trick is determining how long a monopoly is best.
 
2012-10-19 01:15:56 PM  

Mock26: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

Indefinite.

Let us say that I open up a small business selling sandwiches topped with a secret sauce. Upon my death the business goes to my son, and upon his death it goes to his son, etc. The government cannot step in after X number of years and declare that I have to give out the recipe of my secret sauce to everyone in the world so that they can start making their own version of it. I do not think that a copyright should be any different.


if you want to have an "indefinite secret" like that... just don't patent it. As soon as you want legal protection of your "secret recipie" (or circuit design, or rubber formula, etc) you have to hand the knowledge of it over so it's known what's protected.
 
2012-10-19 02:11:48 PM  

LordOfThePings: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: WorthNoting: Sonny Bono was a CONGRESSMAN??????? :-O

"Weird, right?"

This thread will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we'll be lucky to live through it.


/Ronald Reagan unavailable for comment
 
2012-10-19 02:44:54 PM  

OniExpress: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

Indefinite.

Let us say that I open up a small business selling sandwiches topped with a secret sauce. Upon my death the business goes to my son, and upon his death it goes to his son, etc. The government cannot step in after X number of years and declare that I have to give out the recipe of my secret sauce to everyone in the world so that they can start making their own version of it. I do not think that a copyright should be any different.

if you want to have an "indefinite secret" like that... just don't patent it. As soon as you want legal protection of your "secret recipie" (or circuit design, or rubber formula, etc) you have to hand the knowledge of it over so it's known what's protected.


To clarify what I think that OniExpress was talking about, as I understand it, there are four basic types of intellectual property protection (note: IANAL):

• Copyright ― Generally for creative works such as art, literature, music (including lyrics), poetry, etc. Intended to be of limited duration, after which property reverts irrevocably to Public Domain and becomes part of the cultural heritage. The property being protected must be fully revealed at the time of protection. Originally ‶opt-in" (meaning that if you didn′t explicitly copyright a work, it became Public Domain by default), now ‶opt-out" (meaning that all creative works are considered copyrighted when fixed in tangible form, and only become Public Domain upon [increasingly distant] expiration or if the creator explicitly releases it to the Public Domain).

• Trademark ― Intended for brands, logos, etc. Potentially unlimited duration (no set time limit), but must be kept in active use, must not be permitted to become the generic reference for the type of product or service (e.g. ‶formica" [neé Formica®]), and you must vigorously defend it if infringements become known to you (failure to do so can result in a court determining that you must not have really wanted to keep it ― this is why Disney infamously sued a children′s hospital who had painted Disney characters on a mural to help put sick children at ease ― they settled such that Disney charged them a token pittance to license the characters ― Disney wasn′t out to soak nor even to punish the hospital, but rather merely to legally establish that they still held trademarks on those characters, which they could license as they saw fit ― had Disney not asserted their trademarks even in that case, they could easily have lost them forever!). Trademarks can also be lost due to punitive action, such as Bayer® AG losing the trademark on ‶aspirin" by the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal as punishment for their financial backing of the Nazis.

• Patent ― For actual inventions. Must be innovative and non-obvious, without prior art. Of limited duration and cannot be renewed, but the protection is much stronger than for copyright. Unlike copyright, patents protect against others coming up with similar inventions independently of yours ― an invention like yours would still be considered patent infringement even if the other inventor didn′t even know about yours. As with both of the above, the nature of the invention must be completely revealed in the patent application. The long-term benefit to society is that everything about the invention and how it works becomes public knowledge, which can be freely used by anyone once the patent expires.

• Trade Secret ― Also for inventions and for just about anything else. Unlike any of the others, you do not reveal the nature of the secret, nor do you have to do anything other than, well, keep it secret. The only time limit is how long you and your heirs can keep the secret. If the secret gets out, however, your only recourse is to sue whomever revealed it for damages resulting from revealing the trade secret, but you can never stuff the genie back into the bottle. Once a secret has been revealed, it stays revealed, unless you know how to contact Professor Charles Xavier or Mephisto or some such to wipe the knowledge from the memory of all humanity and all records.

For your Secret Sauce, you could copyright the written recipe with its specific wording, but that wouldn′t protect against someone else coming up with a recipe for an identical sauce and wording it slightly differently (e.g. ‶Mix in salt and spices" instead of ‶Stir in spices and salt"). This doesn′t protect the sauce itself, which would generally be considered an invention, not a creative work. And even so, you′d have to reveal the written recipe′s complete wording, since that′s what′s being protected.

You can trademark the name and logo of it, but again, that doesn′t protect the sauce itself, only your branding of it.

To protect the sauce itself, you could either patent it, or make it a Trade Secret. If you patent it, you have to reveal its complete recipe to the Patent Office, which publicly puts it on the patent application for all to see, forever. But, no one would be allowed to make the same sauce, even if they reword the recipe, even if they came up with it independently without having seen your recipe nor tasted your sauce.

If you want to keep it secret, your only option is Trade Secret protection. You give up all legal protections of patent and copyright (you can keep trademark for the branding), but in return, you don′t have to reveal the recipe ― to anyone. You and your heirs can keep the secret for as long as they can prevent anyone else from learning of it. But if someone were to break into the safe deposit box or vault where you had it written down, your only recourse would be legal damages for revealing the secret (and of course criminal trespass). You also have no protection from and no recourse for someone else coming up with the same sauce without referencing your trade secret recipe.

Basically, copyright and patent were established by the Framers of the Constitution to provide a temporary and limited monopoly to artists and inventors to encourage the development of arts and sciences, in return for complete information about the creative work or invention which would become available to the society and culture at large forever. If you do not wish for society to obtain this benefit, you can opt for Trade Secret instead, which has no actual legal teeth to speak of.
 
2012-10-19 03:13:38 PM  

COMALite J: snip


Basically what I was not feeling like going into; the fact that a lot of people get confused with the three "official" forms and the one "actually keep it a secret" form.

I don't have a lot of problem with the duration of the current laws, but I am completely of the opinion that the United States is way too lax in handing out copyright/trademark/patent rights.
 
2012-10-19 04:39:38 PM  

Teiritzamna: Mock26: Let us say that I open up a small business selling sandwiches topped with a secret sauce. Upon my death the business goes to my son, and upon his death it goes to his son, etc. The government cannot step in after X number of years and declare that I have to give out the recipe of my secret sauce to everyone in the world so that they can start making their own version of it. I do not think that a copyright should be any different.

congratulations! I have seen threads where everyone mistakes patent for copyright, or copyright for trademark, but this is the first time i have seen someone mistake Trade Secret for Copyright. Finally, the universe seems complete!

Each of the four IP doctrines has different goals, purposes and principles, so analogizing from TS to Copyright is . . . well . . . it is like saying that because your iPad works a certain way, so should your toaster. I mean they are both electronics.


Congratulations on not getting my point! I know the difference between a trade secret and a copyright. Nor was I even remotely trying to make a connection between the two, except that in both cases we are dealing with a "product." As for your iPad/Toaster example, that only shows that you missed my point by about a million miles. Sure, they are both electronics, but the example I was going for was that they are both products.
 
2012-10-19 05:22:13 PM  

COMALite J: To protect the sauce itself, you could either patent it,


Difficulty: recipes are not patentable. If he developed a new sauce-making machine, or if he figured out a special method of shaking the sauce in the sauce-bottle for maximum sauciness, he could patent that. But specific mixtures and proportions of food are never subject to patent.

Not really your point, I know, but... KNOWLEDGE!
 
2012-10-20 01:02:54 PM  

Mock26: LoneWolf343: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

Indefinite.

Let us say that I open up a small business selling sandwiches topped with a secret sauce. Upon my death the business goes to my son, and upon his death it goes to his son, etc. The government cannot step in after X number of years and declare that I have to give out the recipe of my secret sauce to everyone in the world so that they can start making their own version of it. I do not think that a copyright should be any different.

The government declares that the copyright exists in the first place, so it can stop doing it whenever it damn well pleases.

And as long as the copyright exists I will support making it last longer and longer and longer and longer.


Yeah, that's a great idea. Maybe we can have the estates of Egyptian priests sue teenagers for wearing ankhs.
 
2012-10-21 06:01:33 PM  

LoneWolf343: Mock26: LoneWolf343: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Mock26: ShawnDoc: Superman should be in the public domain by now anyway.

No, he should not.

So what do you consider a reasonable length of time for a copyright?

Indefinite.

Let us say that I open up a small business selling sandwiches topped with a secret sauce. Upon my death the business goes to my son, and upon his death it goes to his son, etc. The government cannot step in after X number of years and declare that I have to give out the recipe of my secret sauce to everyone in the world so that they can start making their own version of it. I do not think that a copyright should be any different.

The government declares that the copyright exists in the first place, so it can stop doing it whenever it damn well pleases.

And as long as the copyright exists I will support making it last longer and longer and longer and longer.

Yeah, that's a great idea. Maybe we can have the estates of Egyptian priests sue teenagers for wearing ankhs.


If ancient Egypt had copyright laws and/or corporations and you could prove that someone or some corporation had created and copyrighted the ankh, then, yeah, I would be all for it.
 
Displayed 112 of 112 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report