Tag Archives: copyright
Marvel/Disney Sends Creator Owned Comic Cease and Desist (Updated)
You can thank Disney for our current clusterfuck that is copyright and it hasn’t taken long for Marvel, now under the Disney banner, to hop on the bandwagon. On top of their legal battles with the various creators of the characters they are currently making millions on, the house the Mouse owns is now targeting creator owned projects.
Marvel/Disney has sent a cease and desist to creators Mike Kaluta and Elaine Lee over their project Starstruck.
Taken from a Facebook post:
Look, I TOLD everyone once the Marvel vs. Friedrich judgment was cast, we’d be seeing Marvel/Disney going after every creator that emerged in their legal department bullseye. Case in point: Marvel/Disney issued a CEASE & DESIST letter against ELAINE LEE & MIKE KALUTA for their creator-owned, Epic-published STARSTRUCK.
Elaine Lee wrote, this morning: “Look, I’ll say it now. Kaluta and I, just week before last, received a letter from a Marvel/Disney attorney, challenging our rights to Starstruck, a project that was briefly with Marvel/Epic, supposedly their creator-owned imprint, almost three decades ago. Since then, we’ve been published by Dark Horse and IDW. This has sent us rummaging through 30-year-old documents, looking for proof that we own what we own. We’ve found several letters that back up our claim that the rights were returned to us, and things seem to have quieted down, but we are still looking for more “just in case.” You don’t screw around with The Mouse.
I’m currently doing an interview for a new book on women in geeky professions. They asked me to give advice to young women starting out. My advice is do your own thing. Keep the rights to your work. If you sell your work, make sure you get Hollywood money, not comic book money.”
Got that? Marvel/Disney, attacking the creators of the only creator-ownership line they’d launched, post COMIX BOOK.
The Marvel/Disney legal machine is capable of ANYTHING in the name of “we own it ALL.”
It’s possible this letter was a simple mistake, but they cost creators and those sent them time and money to respond. This is why false cease and desist and take down notices should bring with them fines and penalties. This way, only legitimate ones are sent and those inconvenienced are reimbursed for false accusations.
An update is below, but it only solidifies my thoughts above.
UPDATE:
Elaine Lee writes: Just to make sure that things don’t veer into the realm of “truthiness,” Michael Kaluta and I received a letter that challenged our ownership of Starstruck and used the words, “please stop all sales and other related activities.” Through our lawyer, we provided two letters from Marvel’s former publisher, Mike Hobson, that backed our ownership of Starstruck. Things seem to have calmed down now. The situation seems to have been resolved. (I’m overusing the word “seems,” so as not to jinx myself. Knock wood.) It was scary. At first, we weren’t sure we could find the 3-decades-old documents we needed. (From way back in the pre-digtal days, youngsters. We’re talking paper here. Dusty, old, yellow paper.) But there is no lawsuit. We think it may either have been about Disney’s teen movie of a couple of years back, also called Starstruck. They may have found us while looking for people infringing on their property. Or they may have been simply trying to figure out what they still owned. But it was a frightening way to do it. So, this may have been an aberration, or other Epic creators may hear from them. Who knows? But creators may want to scare up that old paperwork. It can’t hurt and might save you several days of abject fear.
(via Bleeding Cool)
Rep. Darrell Issa Wants You to be Able to Rip Your DVDs
In October in the latest DMCA exemption review, the Copyright Office/Librarian of Congress refused to say it was legal for you to rip your own legally purchased DVDs so that you could watch them on a computer or tablet. That’d make a lot of us criminals for just loading our iPods and iPads.
The ludicrous nature of that didn’t go unnoticed and Representative Darrell Issa is planning a bill to fix the Copyright Office’s mistake.
We think we can write at least some clarifying language that would instruct the Copyright Office to more accurately define what is, in fact, fair use. People who make copies on their iPod for jogging are not the problem.
We won’t see this legislation until next Congress, in 2013. Hopefully we can see some broad support to expand fair use, as proposed by the report that was taken down by the Republican Study Committee. Considering as it currently stands, we’re a nation of lawbreakers just for wanting our purchased media to no longer be tethered to the outdated discs we purchased years ago.
Around the Tubes
As this was written before I went to bed…. is the election over with?
Around the Blogs
Comics With Problems – Good Government Comic Book – A great slice of history.
Bloomberg BusinessWeek – Superman Heirs, DC Comics Appeal Copyright Case – Definitely a case to watch.
The Guardian – America: Elect! The action-packed journey to US election day in graphic novel form – The execution is interesting but facts pretty shallow.
ComicBook – Barack Obama’s Five Strangest Comic Book Adventures – Classics all.
News Channel 12 – $19k in Stolen Comic Books Returned to Owner – Glad he got it back.
DC Women Kicking Ass – That Time Babara “Boots” Gordon Ran for Congress! – Interesting.
Around the Tubes Reviews
Bleeding Cool – Bedlam #1
The Beat – Deadpool #1
IGN – Deadpool #1
The Beat – Iron Man #1
Bleeding Cool – The Manhattan Projects #7
Bleeding Cool – Perhapanauts: Trouble Down Under #1
Spandexless – The Underwater Welder
Supreme Court Weighs First-Sale Case and Why It Matters to You
This Monday, not deterred by Sandy bearing down on DC, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. a court case involving the first-sale doctrine. At issue as provided by Scotus Blog:
How do Section 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which prohibits the importation of a work without the authority of the copyright’s owner, and Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act, which allows the owner of a copy “lawfully made under this title” to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy without the copyright owner’s permission, apply to a copy that was made and legally acquired abroad and then imported into the United States?
The case comes after a lower court ruling. Supap Kirtsaeng, a graduate student, arranged to import textbooks legally purchased at a discount in his native Thailand. He then resold them to buyers in the United States on eBay to help pay for his school expenses. The publisher, John Wiley & Sons, sued, arguing that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to works purchased overseas in so-called gray markets. The lower court sided with Wiley & Sons.
So lets start with what the first-sale doctrine is. This is the concept that if you want to resell or donate a legally purchased copywritten item, you don’t need to seek the permission of the rights holder. This means you can resell your video games or cd’s or comic books that you legally purchase. The lower court said “the question presented is how these provisions apply to a copy that was made and legally acquired abroad and then imported into the United States.” I want you to take a moment to go and look at where those video games, cd’s and comic books you play, listen to and read are made. Bet you it isn’t the United States.
The Supreme Court last considered the right to import copyrighted works from overseas for domestic resale in 2010, when it deadlocked four to four in Costco v. Omega, with Justice Elena Kagan, who had been involved in the case as an attorney with the Justice Department, having recused herself. Kagan is participating in the Kirtsaeng case.
As you can see in the posted oral arguments, the court seemed to take issues with both sides’ arguments. But, this ruling has major implications for us comic book fans. A strict interpretation that says we can’t sell foreign imported works means we couldn’t resell our old comics. Those who like to buy and sell on ebay or shop owners with old stock could be hampered by this, shutting down the secondary market.
There’s also the other extreme. If the court rules that legally purchased items could be resold, there’s greater implications for digital goods. If you purchase a digital comic, no matter the service, could you now resell those no matter the agreement you sign to use the digital service? In a statement, Andrew Shore, executive director of the Owners’ Rights Initiative, said the group “hopes that the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to defend owners’ rights and clarify that if you buy something, you own it.” Take that and apply it to virtual goods and you can see this decision has a much greater impact than some imported college textbooks.
With a ruling expected in 2013, you better believe all eyes should be on the Supreme Court.
Around the Tubes
The weekend is here and if you’re on the East coast like myself, you’re preparing for the weather apocalypse… which I’ll spend reading comics.
Around the Blogs
ComicsAlliance – Kirby Family Asks Court to Overturn Marvel Ruling – Interesting…
Around the Tubes Reviews
Make Wealth History – The Co-operative Revolution
Talking Comics – I, Vampire #13
CBR – Journey Into Mystery #645
Talking Comics – Multiple Warheads #1
Esquire – The Nao of Brown
Talking Comics – Punisher War Zone #1
Talking Comics – Talon #1
Paste Magazine – Comic Book & Graphic Novel Round Up 10/24/12
Warner Bros. Gets a Big Win in the Superman Copyright Battle
Warner Bros. won a key court battle in its legal battle with the heirs of Superman co-creator Joe Shuster over the rights to the character.
Variety reports that U.S. District Judge Otis Wright ruled Wednesday that a 1992 agreement prevents the family of Shuster from “exercising a portion of copyright law that allows authors to recapture their works.”
Judge Wright wrote
…the effort by Jean Peavy, the sister of Joseph Shuster, and her son, Mark Warren Peary, to exercise a so-called ‘termination right’ was superseded by a 1992 pact made shortly after Shuster’s death. In it, Peavy and her brother Frank signed a deal with DC Comics, a unit of Warner Bros., to cover Joseph Shuster’s debts and pay her $25,000 a year for the rest of her life. Wright noted in his opinion that DC’s then-executive vice president Paul Levitz admonished them that by taking the agreement, they ‘would fully resolve any past, present or future claims against DC.’
That’s good news for Warner Bros. as the loss of Superman would likely cost them 10’s of millions of dollars each year, if not more. They won’t have to seek the permission of the creator’s estates to use the character. Expect an appeal of the decision.
But, this battle is far from over. In 2008 a judge ruled in favor of the heirs of Shuster’s co-creator Jerry Siegel that they could reclaim control of 50% of the Superman rights owned by Warner Bros. Warners is appealing that decision, with a hearing on that and other claims scheduled for November 5.
The Hollywood Reporter has the full decision.
Jerry Siegel’s Daughter Speaks Out
Jerry Siegel’s daughter issued a letter to fans recounting her family’s fight to reclaim a portion of the Superman copyright, and criticizing the tactics used by Warner Bros. and DC Comics in the increasingly bitter legal battle.
In 2008 a federal judge ruled that the Siegel family had succeeded in recapturing a share of the first Superman story in Action Comics #1 through a provision of the U.S. Copyright Act. Some of that is still being fought over in appeal. This put DC in a bind as some of Superman’s defining elements were no longer completely in their hands, such as his secret identity, his origin, his costume and Lois Lane.
DC then sued in 2010, to force Marc Toberoff to resign as the Siegel attorney. They claim he advised the family to walk away from a $3 million deal that would’ve permitted the company to retain control of Superman and stands to gain controlling interest in the property.
DC is also asking a court to block the Shuster estate from reclaiming its stake. They claim the family relinquished all claims to Superman in 1992 in exchange for “more than $600,000 and other benefits,” including payment of Shuster’s debts following his death earlier that year and a $25,000 annual pension for his sister Jean Peavy.
The battle has been bitter and hard fought as hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.
Marvel Vs. Kippa Man
Photo: Marc Israel Sellem/The Jerusalem Post
Marvel’s has decided to go after a Jerusalem kippa maker over copyright violations with a lawsuit. The company is suing the well-known Kippa Man shop for NIS 100,000 ($25,274) in damages. The kippas feature many Marvel characters. The lawsuit is being brought by local Israeli attorneys Ivtsan-Netzer-Wolecki & Co. Marvel is claiming it lost revenue due to breach of intellectual property by Kippa Man.
A photograph of a kippa purchased featuring Spider-Man was submitted as evidence of the infringement.
Avi Binyamin, the owner of the shop claims that the real lawsuit should be brought against the company that produces them in China. The store is one of many on the street and the most well known, which is why Binyamin thinks he was targeted.
The court document claimed copyright violations have become rampant in Israel over the years, so expect more.
(via Times of Israel of Jerusalem Post)
Nerds for Obama Slapped With a Removal Request, from the Obama Campaign
The issue of copyright, intellectual property, fair use and the re-mix generation have been a point of contention for this current Congress and the Obama administration. It should be no surprise then that Nerds for Obama have been asked to remove all items from their webstore by Obama for America‘s corporate counsel. The administration and Congress have proven themselves again as friends of the copyright protection lawyers.
The website, launched in early September, attempts to engage young and enthusiastic voters by linking President Obama to pop culture like Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Game of Thrones and more. They engage, quite effectively, with social media getting geeks excited and leveraging memes.
The site also provided the chance to purchase t-shirts, buttons and stickers of the Obama campaign logo mashed up with geek imagery as well as free items to use as icons on websites. The idea being that people can show off their support in a fun way and support Obama along with their cultural interest, taking a play from the popular tactic of political campaigns targeting their campaign swag. You’ll see “Jews for Obama”, “Teachers for Obama”, etc. Hell I had a “Beer drinkers for Kerry” back in 2004.
The website was engaging fandom and targeting groups of people that are normally overlooked by campaigns. I could go into a long diatribe about trying to target video game players while working on a Presidential campaign some years ago. The Obama campaign even seemed to dig it, reblogging on Tumblr a photo of the website’s “Ravenclaws for Obama” button.
But, fun an politics don’t seem to mix. The website was contacted by Obama for America’s corporate counsel and asked to remove all of the items from the Nerds for Obama website. The lawyers took issue with the usage of the Obama logo, which is a trademarked image. In all cases, the website had modified the logo and never used it in an unaltered form.
There’s a good chance this falls under “Fair Use.” “Fair Use” is permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. When determining it you need to look at how much of the work is used, what the purpose of the use is and any damages/losses that might be due to the “fair use.” And, even I’ll admit, this is a grey area, not clearly defined and I’d be unsure how a judge would decide the case.
No matter, this copyright trolling by the Obama campaign’s lawyers hurts the campaign. It disenfranchises potential supporters and puts a damper on those who have participated. The campaign and their lawyers are taking the fun out of it all. There’s clearly enthusiastic supporters here and instead of trying to end the site’s activities, it’d have been smarter to bring the site into the fold and encourage it, much like so many “Draft” movements have done in the past, including one for Obama.
But, in the almost four years in office, the administration’s actions has clearly turned it’s back on the re-mix culture and generation that helped propelled it into the White House. It’s no shock to see this, and unfortunate too. No matter the result and how this is resolved, this reflects poorly on the campaign and administration.
The campaign, and President need to return to the fun whimsy of the Doctor, instead of the cold calculated heart of the Dalek.
