Originally Posted by Master Zik
Everything I've read about the case since last year has stated that the Kirby estate do not have a legitimate claim. Months ago when it was talking about it getting to the SC everything I read about it details wise stated pretty clearly that the SC would not rule in their favor.
So for you to make it seem as if they had a chance of winning and that other corporations were in fear of how things would change and that they were pressuring DIsney to settle is a lie and pretty much bull ****.
Jeffrey Trexler- LAW PROFE4SSOR FRODAHM LAW -http://www.tcj.com/taking-back-the-kirby-case/
"Kirby's work occurred before the Copyright Act of 1976, and prior copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1909, didn't give enough clarity on the issue"Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
"There hasn’t been a 1909 Act copyright case raising such important and far-reaching issues for almost a quarter of a century, and the Kirby case could provide the perfect platform for a ruling that could make termination rights in pre-1978 material more than just a legal fiction for many creators and their families. Just as Jack Kirby revolutionized graphic storytelling, his family’s quest to reclaim his innovative creations has the potential to revolutionize copyright law."
Jaimie Franks - Osgoode Hall Law School.Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
reopening of the issue and Marvel’s response have ignited a conversation about copyright and the idea of work for hire – a concept extremely significant to the entire entertainment industry. - :
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
If the Supreme Court were to find in favour of the Kirbys’ camp, the leaders of the entertainment industry could see their copyrights in important (and financially lucrative) franchises, characters, and works be challenged and potentially taken away by individual creators and their families or estates. This could result in a huge shift in how these studios, record labels, and publishing houses do business, having to possibly create partnerships with these artists and seek permission to use the works their businesses rely on. The artist’s or creator’s role could thus be elevated within the industry, no longer just a “worker” or “gear” in the machine but a partner in the creation of entertainment products
Yet, there are signs that the case may actually be heard. For example, Marvel originally declined to respond to the petition and only did so after being asked to by the Court’s justices because they planned to take the case into conference – a step towards a hearing.
"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.
Bill Lehman Director of the U.S. Patent Office under President Bill ClintonWarning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
not only citing Kirby's independence during the time he contributed materials to his primary client, but also because he thinks the 2nd Circuit disregarded legislative history on the meaning of the term "employer," ignored the Supreme Court's canon of statutory interpretation, and in particular, disregarded Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall's 1989 decision in CCNV v. Reid. That opinion dealt with a commissioned work of sculptural art and whether it could be considered a work-made-for-hire when the commissioning party played a big role in its creation. According to Lehman's interpretation of the CCNV opinion, "Justice Marshall rejected the Second Circuit’s 'instance and expense' test and endorsed the D.C. Circuit’s approach, concluding that 'the term ‘employee’ should be understood in light of the general common law of agency.'”....
"The court of appeal’s analysis conflicts with Justice Marshal’s analysis of the work for hire doctrine under the 1909 Act," he writes. "Jack Kirby’s works at issue fell into the category of 'commissioned works' which Justice Marshall concluded were 'convey[ed],' i.e., assigned. Furthermore, all of the evidence available to the lower courts supported that Kirby 'convey[ed] the copyright' to Marvel, not that Marvel owned Kirby’s work at creation. That is precisely the circumstance 17 U.S.C. § 304 is intended to address by giving authors or their statutory heirs the opportunity to terminate such copyright transfers."
He adds that the 2nd Circuit's "misinterpretation" would result in unfairly stripping freelance artists of their termination rights and provides an "unintended and unwarranted windfall to publishers."
Im not going to go on with this, you are being unreasonable. I have two lawyers and the FORMER HEAD OF THE US PATENT OFFICE who think his case has merit.
The reality is.
FACT: The results of this case would have massive effects throughout the entire entertainment industry.
FACT: The amount of money at stake is incalculable.
FACT: former head of patent office thinks he has a case.
FACT: DGA, WGA, SGA thinks he has a case.
FACT: Disney was completely content to fight the Kirby Airs in court UNTIL the Supreme court agreed to decide on hearing this case, then settlement and asked Disney to make a statement.
in the face of all that you think Disney didn't vigorousness pursue a settlement? if thats what you wanna believe then fine. I think thats a completely irrational conclusion.