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 112
    More: Obvious, Joseph Shuster, Superman, Windows key, super strength, secret identity, Superman co, Jerry Siegel, summary judgment  
•       •       •

11971 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2012 at 1:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report