It's Monday. I guess you've probably noticed that by now. Personally, I think I'm still a little sleep deprived this wonderful Monday evening. It was a good weekend that was mostly relaxing but still not enough sleep was to be had. There was Mom time and Dog time and bike time, football time, laundry time, and dinner having time. Followed by more bike time. One of these Sundays I'll figure out that riding my bike to my friend's apartment for dinner is not a great plan. Seems wonderful at 5 PM, exhausting at 10 PM.
One of the things my mom and I did this weekend was attend a fundraiser dinner and silent auction. Something I've never experienced before and I must say it was certainly interesting. I'll spare you the details but rest assured the food was tasty and the drinks did not disappoint.
While not well mixed, I did try what I think may be a version of my new favorite cocktail. A Strawberry Basil Gin drink that sent a lovely combination of flavors dancing across my tongue with every sip. Well, that might be an exaggeration. But it was really good! So good in fact that I'm attempting my own Strawberry Basil cocktail this evening. I'll let you know how it goes and will certainly share the recipe and pictures if it's a success. For the moment I think it's going to be some version of this Berry Gimlet.
I do have more to talk about beyond alcohol! Keep reading!
Actually, I have questions.
First off, what are people's thoughts on this whole lawsuit thing by the Kirby Estate against Marvel and Disney? Basically Jack Kirby's kids are seeking to reclaim the copyrights for the comic book characters he created for Marvel (Jack Kirby himself died in 1994).
Personally I find it to be an interesting albeit very complicated story. As someone involved even remotely in creative endeavors, I tend to fall on the side of the creator, or in this case the creator's estate. Even more so when you consider how much intellectual property is improperly acquired or how often creators are cheated out of compensation they should fairly receive for their work. Against that you could argue that the creator's work was work-for-hire and therefore belongs to Marvel. An argument I don't find particularly convincing but I have to concede that this case is more complicated because of how copyright laws have changed over the years.
Coming on the heals of the recent Superman case, it seems like the Kirby's do have a pretty good shot here (Jerry Siegel's Estate won back the his share of the rights to Superman back in August. Kirby's estate is not surprisingly using the same legal representation.)
/Film's article does give a little more background though as well as a partial list of some of the characters he's responsible for.
Oh, also, there's this about copyright law from the LA Times:
Under copyright law, creators and co-creators can seek to regain copyrights they previously assigned to a company 56 years after first publication and can give notice of their intentions to do so up to 10 years before that.
Taking that into consideration, does that mean the work-for-hire bit is irrelevant anyway? I believe so.
So what do you think? Are his heirs wrong in trying to reclaim the copyright for work he created? Should the rights to these characters remain with Marvel (and now Disney)? The films that could potentially be affected would be ones like the upcoming Avengers movies Marvel has planned although most of those should be completed before the date that the Kirby Estate is trying to reclaim the copyrights by. Even if they get back the copyrights, Disney and Marvel would still own the trademarks. Or something like that?
Some other sites with various thoughts. Film School Rejects seems to fall on the side of being bummed that the Kirby Estate may put a halt to superhero movies. Paul Constant is coming in on the other side.
I was going to ask more questions but after that I think I should probably split this up into several posts. Different topics deserve their own discussions, don't you think? Okay, I'm convinced. More questions will come later. Specifically I want to talk about women in the workplace. Or rather, women working with other women in the workplace. I've noticed a few things through my own experiences and listening to the experiences of others and I'd like throw some of that out there. Just not right this second. I shall compose my thoughts and come back at you maybe tomorrow. How's that sound? I like it!
Posts
Captain’s Orders
5 days ago
2 comments:
"Taking that into consideration, does that mean the work-for-hire bit is irrelevant anyway?"
In this case, yes. Early works before about 1975 (I think was the year) can be called into question due to legality concerning the contracts and situations. Now that is very different.
But the Kirby stuff is interesting if only because some of it has almost zero merit. The Spider-Man bit is fairly shocking since even Kirby had said he had nothing to do with that, though he drew a sketch of a character, that wasn't used. So I'm not sure yet where this lies.
1975 sounds right. It was definitely in the 70's. I really don't know enough about this, but that's what Kirby's suit in the 80's stemmed from, right?
That's true about the characters! Looking at that the argument that the Kirby Estate is just being greedy definitely becomes more legitimate. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Post a Comment