This is what you're missing there was no minuscule chance. No 1% chance.
Every single piece of evidence (including statements by the man himself) point to all of Jack's creations while at Marvel being owned solely by Marvel. It's the same case for Stan who made a deal a long time ago for royalties.
The Kirby estate were looking for a payday cuz of the movies. Disney negotiated because they had so much damn extra money cuz of the movies. The StanLeeMedia group (not even owned by Stan btw nor was the suit initiated by him) tried the same exact thing by suing Marvel for the rights of Stan's characters and that fell on it's face too.
There was literally no chance of this case ever being dealt with by the supreme court in a favorable way for the Kirby estate given the initial statements made by the sitting judges of that court about this issue being considered to appear before them.
1. You clearly aren't informed about the details of the case. Go look up the details in the copywrite act that was updated in 1976 the vague language in it is what this comes down to, the instance and expense test ect ect you just aren't iformed.
2. Yeah because the supreme court clearly loves wasting it's time by hearing cases that have no chance.
3. They didn't try the same thing, it's different they are appealing to a different law.
Also this whole movie studio thing is complete bull ****. The rights to the comics do not negate the licensing contracts already in place for any movie studio. You're just making that up.
im not going to go on reading this I'll just leave you with these quotes.
"Bruce Lehman, former director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, also weighed in in favor of the Kirby heirs, arguing that the law in the late 50s and early 60s was that the definition of a work made “for hire” applied only to traditional employees and not freelancers."
im "making it up"
"The bottom line and PR risk that the media giant was taking if SCOTUS had agreed to move the family’s petition up to an actual hearing would have sent a shudder through the market and the town
. As well, if there had been a hearing and if then the High Court had found for the Kirbys, the results would have thrown Marvel/Disney into turmoil as they would have to negotiate for millions and millions with the family on everything from The Avengers, this summer’s big hit Guardians Of The Galaxy, with the popular Groot character a Kirby creation, and the all the characters in the notices if they wanted to keep the franchises going at Disney and other studios. And there would have been royalties on the already made movies like the 2008 hit Iron Man and 2012’s The Avengers with its billion dollar plus box office, to name a few. As well a wide variety of copyrights across the industry
, including those at Warner Bros and DC Comics, would suddenly be in play as the work of writers, composers and others designated under a freelancer or the work for hire status could suddenly gain a piece of what they created
in what would now be seen as a much more traditional employee/employer arrangement."
" SAG-AFTRA, the WGA and the DGA back in June submitted an amicus brief to the High Court in favor of having the Kirbys’ petition granted."
"It heard 10 cases involving patents and copyrights during the 2013 term. In May, it ruled that Hollywood studio MGM can be sued for copyright infringement more than three decades after releasing the boxing film Raging Bull."
"A finding for the Kirby family could have had huge ramifications on intellectual property rights in the past and going forward, calling into question the validity of work-for-hire contracts. That doesn’t feel like the kind of case that a massive company like Disney would want to risk losing."Edited by Osh Kosh Bosh - 9/28/14 at 6:05am