News On Future Films Based on Comics/Paranormal/Sci-Fi

The Kirby estate had to settle cuz they knew they had no chance if it made it to the supreme court based off of what they had said about the case and all other courts leading up to it. Most likely the offer Marvel left on the table before this started is the same one they took now given how much legal fees they have.

Also I'm pretty sure Jack Kirby was already getting a creator credit right after Stan Lee (along with other names depending on the m movie) on all Marvel movies; MCU, X-Men, F4.
 
Last edited:
Master Zik said:
The Kirby estate had to settle cuz they knew they had no chance if it made it to the supreme court based off of what they had said about the case and all other courts leading up to it. Most likely the offer Marvel left on the table before this started is the same one they took now given how much legal fees they have.

Also I'm pretty sure Jack Kirby was already getting a creator credit right after Stan Lee (along with other names depending on the m movie) on all Marvel movies; MCU, X-Men, F4.
Click to expand...

no.

Even a minuscule chance that their suit could be successful puts them in a strong bargaining position and the mere fact that the supreme court decided to hear the case puts it above miniscule and into the realm of distinctly possible.

Even if it's a 1% shot, the ramifications are not only billions in damages that they would have to pay to Kirby but it would set a president that would allow other original creators to retract copyrights, something that the film industry and company that trades mostly on the value of it's original properties created for them by other people could not afford to allow this to happen.

I can assure you every other movie studio, especially any studio with work for hire IP properties, fox sony, ect would be putting an immense amount of pressure on Disney to settle.

matter fact any entetainment company would be beating down disneys door to put the russion roulette revolver down.



The minute Supreme court decided to hear this case this gave disney with only one reasonable negotiate with the kirby estate and settle.
 
Last edited:
I'm ust happy I don't have to feel ****** anytime I pay for mavel comics/film.


The average person thinks Stan Lee invented all of this, and they don't principle know the principle creative forces, kirby ditko.

More than anything I hope now his work, and his greatness can be properly celebrated in the comics and film and the culture at large will recognize him as a american genius.
 
Last edited:
Osh Kosh Bosh said:
Master Zik said:
The Kirby estate had to settle cuz they knew they had no chance if it made it to the supreme court based off of what they had said about the case and all other courts leading up to it. Most likely the offer Marvel left on the table before this started is the same one they took now given how much legal fees they have.

Also I'm pretty sure Jack Kirby was already getting a creator credit right after Stan Lee (along with other names depending on the m movie) on all Marvel movies; MCU, X-Men, F4.
Click to expand...

no.

Even a minuscule chance that their suit could be successful puts them in a strong bargaining position and the mere fact that the supreme court decided to hear the case puts it above miniscule and into the realm of distinctly possible.

Even if it's a 1% shot, the ramifications are not only billions in damages that they would have to pay to Kirby but it would set a president that would allow other original creators to retract copyrights, something that the film industry and company that trades mostly on the value of it's original properties created for them by other people could not afford to allow this to happen.

I can assure you every other movie studio, especially any studio with work for hire IP properties, fox sony, ect would be putting an immense amount of pressure on Disney to settle.

matter fact any entetainment company would be beating down disneys door to put the russion roulette revolver down.



The minute Supreme court decided to hear this case this gave disney with only one reasonable negotiate with the kirby estate and settle.
Click to expand...
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.

Basically this:
The case never got to trial after a judge — and later the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals — determined that when Kirby was doing most of his work in the 1950s and 1960s, he had contributed his materials as a "work made for hire." As such, Marvel was considered the statutory author, and Kirby (and his heirs) never had any termination rights under the 1976 Copyright Act.
Click to expand...


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. Companies in general may have been worried if the SC was going to rule for the Kirby estate but they didn't have the case in order to win. Also so the **** what if these other corps even attempted to lean on Disney about this? Disney is a damn conglomerate it don't even makes sense that they'd pay any mind to FOX studios. If it's really is something have Rupert say something. There was never gonna be some revolutionizing of creator rights based off of this case. The Kirby estate was arguing that while everybody else (including Stan) were work for hire somehow he wasn't and therefore everything he created was creator owned. The only reason the case even made it this far was because they had backing from other creators in media and a bunch of meaningless petitions that were more about changing creators' rights in media than this specific case.

High chance the initial offer Marvel proposed is the similar one the estate is now taking cuz otherwise it wouldn't make sense if they could get 100% ownership. Disney never had a real chance of losing this.

If what you're saying had any actual credibility to it then the Bill Finger estate would be suing DC/WB and the Kane estate for the Batman rights and that would've been a more compelling case or a possible case for Seigel and Shuster for the Superman rights (even though that estate have already won one case about Superman's origins).
Osh Kosh Bosh said:
I'm ust happy I don't have to feel ****** anytime I pay for mavel comics/film.


The average person thinks Stan Lee invented all of this, and they don't principle know the principle creative forces, kirby ditko.

More than anything I hope now his work, and his greatness can be properly celebrated in the comics and film and the culture at large will recognize him as a american genius.
Click to expand...
The thing is Jack's and Steve's names were already on the credits.

Jack's work and greatness has already been celebrated in comics for decades and will continue to be celebrated.

But that's not gonna change the public perception of many who aren't informed fans that Stan isn't the face and THE name of Marvel comics responsible for it, especially given he's still alive, still giving speeches, and showing up at cons (although not as much).

With that said Steve Ditko is still alive and has chosen to step away from the limelight of the comics medium. however, his statements about the creative process while at Marvel are easy to find when it comes to establishing who created what and the collaboration of early Marvel comics.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

im not going to go on reading this I'll just leave you with these quotes.

no chance

"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."

no chance

" 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."

no risk

"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."
 
Last edited:
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 ****.


Please provide links about the actual case stating the Kirby estate had a legitimate claim or that they weren't being supported by other creators in media with petitions that had no actual bearing on the legitimacy of the actual case. Not opinions mind you but actual legal reasoning stating the Kirby estate had a chance of winning pursuing this.

All I've seen you post here is exactly what I've just spoken on. Ppl in the field supporting the Kirby estate with petitions that don't have actual bearing o the case itself. Massive support from ppl that want this to change doesn't mean that it will change or there's an actual chance.

As far as Bill Finger stuff, maybe you didn't read what I wrote properly. I said if the Kirby estate had a chance then the Finger estate would have a better one and would've already filed most likely right after what happened with the Superman rights and origin with Shuster and Siegel. You have to consider what is involved in hiring a lawyer and pursuing something like this whether you have support or not.
 
Last edited:
I know that I'm very late on this, but Captain America: The Winter Soldier was incredible. I remember seeing this in the theater and being completely let down. I guess my biggest gripe was the lack of development of Bucky, but this time around, I found myself really focusing on the overall threat. I still thought that there was probably a better way to eliminate targets other than launching three helicarriers in the air, but whatever.

All in all, I loved the first Cap, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but this franchise is one film away from being the best superhero trilogy.
 


TDK > BB > BR > Superman II > MoS. Everything else is trash

Don't know nothin about them other DC movies at the end. Lookin fwd to Sandman just cuz I wanna know what makes that guy so special.
 
Last edited:
Dreamworks animation might be sold to a japanese corporation for 3.4 billion. 4 billion less than Pixar was bought for a decade ago. Even less than Marvel and Star Wars was purchased for.
 
:rofl: I remember all of those X-Men eps

Prof. X was always regulated to being a red shirt cuz of his awesome power.

Who was the voice actor for him? :lol: Such a distinctive voice.
 
Master Zik said:
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 ****.
Click to expand...


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"

"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.

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. - :

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.


http://www.iposgoode.ca/2014/07/mar...by-copyright-chronicles/#sthash.wbfvlxZD.dpuf

"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 Clinton

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.
 
:lol: @ this being about Disney wanting a settlement now and not the other bull **** you were saying.

Go look up the statements the judges were saying about this case every time it got shot down instead of just blowing smoke up your *** after the fact.
 
Last edited:
Master Zik said:
:lol: @ this being about Disney wanting a settlement now and not the other bull **** you were saying.
Click to expand...

You aren't a lawyer, im not a lawyer, I have found some lawyers who think the case has merit, and a very credible one at that,

if YOU are running Disney even if the chance is minuscule (and you have to accept that a chance exists given some very prominent layers believe that there is a chance if you can't accept that then just stop reading here.)

given me one good reason why you would risk damn near EVERYTHING, (redefining copy right law for, potentially giving creators the chance to revoke copy write a renegotiate; that account for so much of your primary asset, intellectual property) there is short of airs asking for the IP back or some absurd some of money or for % of profits how much is worth to simply have this go away?

you aren't being reasonable.
 
Master Zik said:
:lol: @ this being about Disney wanting a settlement now and not the other bull **** you were saying.

Go look up the statements the judges were saying about this case every time it got shot down instead of just blowing smoke up your *** after the fact.
Click to expand...

how do cases go to the supreme court?

they were denyed at other courts.


yeah, you aren't being reasonable.
 
itsaboutthattime said:
not sure this belongs in here.. but anyways
Click to expand...
This final trailer reminds me more of an Adam & Eve Twilight Zone ep and a space exploration ep of The Outer Limits.

A bit more intrigued about it.

Don't think they'll make it though (assuming the premise is finding a habitable Earth for mankind to migrate to).
 
Wow, I think the movie didn't really need a sequel. It was real good as a one off rules to living in a zombie apocalypse zombie flick.

Might watch if Bill Murray shows up again :smokin

Osh Kosh Bosh said:
Master Zik said:
:lol: @ this being about Disney wanting a settlement now and not the other bull **** you were saying.

Go look up the statements the judges were saying about this case every time it got shot down instead of just blowing smoke up your *** after the fact.
Click to expand...

how do cases go to the supreme court?

they were denyed at other courts.


yeah, you aren't being reasonable.
Click to expand...
This doesn't even address what I just said :lol: That post isn't about the process of cases being heard by the SC.

You can keep relying on if this happened there'd be huge consequences all you want but that's not what I'm talking about either. You can say if anything happened there'd be consequences. The potential of something happening isn't the same as reality.

But yeah guess I'm the unreasonable one.
 
Master Zik said:
Wow, I think the movie didn't really need a sequel. It was real good as a one off rules to living in a zombie apocalypse zombie flick.

Might watch if Bill Murray shows up again :smokin
This doesn't even address what I just said :lol: That post isn't about the process of cases being heard by the SC.

You can keep relying on if this happened there'd be huge consequences all you want but that's not what I'm talking about either. You can say if anything happened there'd be consequences. The potential of something happening isn't the same as reality.

But yeah guess I'm the unreasonable one.
Click to expand...

you are asserting that past judges at lower course rulings means the case has no merit.

that would be true of every case to reach the supreme court, so any case that reaches the supreme court we should assume has zero claim? obviously not.

Like I have been saying, the minute the supreme court deciding to listen motivated the settlement, and generally the side with more to lose has the greatest incentive to settle. In this case, the risk for disney and any entertainment with IP from indepedont creators from pre 1976 would have an insane amount to lose.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom