Marvel suing estates of artists for control of characters

[Jonathan101]

Marvel is suing former comic-book artists to keep full control over characters including Iron Man, Thor, and Spider-Man

Marvel is suing ex-comic book artists or their estates to keep full control over several characters.

It follows complaints from the artists' heirs, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Their creations were made "for hire" and Marvel claims that this means it fully owns the rights.

See more stories on Insider's business page.

Disney's Marvel division is suing former comic-book artists to keep full control of classic characters.

It filed suit against Larry Lieber, and the estates of Stan Lee, Steve Ditko, Don Heck, Don Rico, and Gene Colan.

The lawsuit, which was viewed by The Hollywood Reporter, claims that Marvel holds full ownership over characters including Iron Man, Spider-Man, and Thor.

The development came after the artists' relatives sent termination notices to try and reclaim part of the rights to several characters.

Iron Man is one of the characters at the centre of the lawsuit. "Marvel's Avengers"/Square Enix
Marvel is suing ex-comic book artists or their estates to keep full control over several characters.

It follows complaints from the artists' heirs, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Their creations were made "for hire" and Marvel claims that this means it fully owns the rights.

Disney's Marvel division is suing former comic-book artists to keep full control of classic characters.

It filed suit against Larry Lieber, and the estates of Stan Lee, Steve Ditko, Don Heck, Don Rico, and Gene Colan.

The lawsuit, which was viewed by The Hollywood Reporter, claims that Marvel holds full ownership over characters including Iron Man, Spider-Man, and Thor.

The development came after the artists' relatives sent termination notices to try and reclaim part of the rights to several characters.

The artists all co-created the characters in question between the 1950s and 1970s. Their creations, however, were made when they were working on a "for hire," basis.

This arrangement means the artists cannot reclaim rights to them under the Copyright Act, Marvel argued in the filing.

In reference to Lieber, who is Lee's brother, Marvel said in the lawsuit: "Marvel assigned Lieber stories to write, had the right to exercise creative control over Lieber's contributions, and paid Lieber a per-page rate for his contributions."

Marc Toberoff, who represents the artists, the lawsuits were based on "an anachronistic and highly criticized interpretation of 'work-made-for-hire' under the 1909 Copyright Act that needs to be rectified," Reuters reported.

But Marvel attorney, Dan Petrocelli told Reuters in a statement: "Since these were works made for hire and thus owned by Marvel, we filed these lawsuits to confirm that the termination notices are invalid and of no legal effect."

This is not the only recent legal battle that Marvel and Disney have been involved in. "Black Widow" actor Scarlett Johansson is suing Disney over the movie's dual-release. The lawsuit argues that Disney violated her contract by debuting the film online and in theaters.

According to court documents shared with Insider, Johansson's representatives contacted Marvel to ensure that the movie would solely be released in theatres.

https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/marvel-suin ... 06923.html

[Draco Dracul]

I hope Disney loses hard.

[clearspira]

The law is the law. Rules are rules. A contract is a contract.

If Disney is in the right in the eyes of the law, then they are in the right. Just because most of us may personally dislike Disney changes nothing. And I find it interesting that when Scarlett Johanssen uses ''I want what i'm owed because I have a contract'' everyone defends her. But when Disney does it...
Sorry. Lee and Ditko et el signed a contract knowing what they were getting into. I have no more sympathy for their estate then I do for the guy who sold Superman for chump change.

[Jonathan101]

The law is the law. Rules are rules. A contract is a contract.

If Disney is in the right in the eyes of the law, then they are in the right. Just because most of us may personally dislike Disney changes nothing. And I find it interesting that when Scarlett Johanssen uses ''I want what i'm owed because I have a contract'' everyone defends her. But when Disney does it...
Sorry. Lee and Ditko et el signed a contract knowing what they were getting into. I have no more sympathy for their estate then I do for the guy who sold Superman for chump change.

It might not actually "be" the law though. It might be how a law is interpreted.

[Deledrius]

And I find it interesting that when Scarlett Johanssen uses ''I want what i'm owed because I have a contract'' everyone defends her. But when Disney does it...

It might help to recognize that people aren't necessarily demonstrating some double-standard here, but that there are multiple axis on which to judge these topics. Generally speaking, there are legal rights and moral rights to creative works; sometimes they're both in agreement and sometimes they aren't, and where people fall on both of those can leave you with a decent variety of non-hypocritical but differing opinions.

[TGLS]

To me, it seems that these folks are out looking for a buck the same way the Conan Doyle estate's looking for their buck (c.f. The Enola Holmes Lawsuit). Then again, it wouldn't be the first time Disney pulled a fast one (and a bit ironic considering the studio's origins).

[Draco Dracul]

The law is the law. Rules are rules. A contract is a contract.

That's a really fucking hollow statement when the only reason those characters aren't in the public domain is that Disney kept changing the law.

[Deledrius]

a bit ironic considering the studio's origins

Indeed. It's sad, Walt set out to make sure no one could do that to him again, but he set no limitations against doing it to others. In this case it's really against Marvel (which just so happens to be Disney now), but the point remains.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

The law is the law. Rules are rules. A contract is a contract.

I didn't know that The Auditors posted on this forum.

I hope Marvel loses, and loses hard, but in a broader legal context, I'm concerned that these lawsuits represent a trend of moving creative writes and copyright concepts away from individual creators who live and die to functionally immortal corporate hegemonies and franchises.

[Thebestoftherest]

The law is the law. Rules are rules. A contract is a contract.

I didn't know that The Auditors posted on this forum.

I hope Marvel loses, and loses hard, but in a broader legal context, I'm concerned that these lawsuits represent a trend of moving creative writes and copyright concepts away from individual creators who live and die to functionally immortal corporate hegemonies and franchises.

They won't. If Alan Moore can't get the rights to watch men back, what chance do you think this won't be the same.