Recent Related Items:

42 Comments


John says:

Um, so did they buy the Marvel company or the movie/comic book? I don`t mind them buying X-Men, fantastic 4 or Hulk but all the other characters i really rather they don`t own because i like seeing the fashion they come in if they bought the company and it won`t effect anything to do with Marvel i guess i`m kind of ok except for spiderman cuz they might have to make the movies lighter if it`s from Disney but if they bought the movie instead of the company i`ll be pissed cuz there`s things to be done in the Spiderman series ok no actually no X-Men is one of my favorites as well i think Batman, Superman, Spiderman, X-Men, and Iron Man and maybe captain america and thor aren`t touched by disney other than that i guess i`m happy.

Chris M. says:

I’m with Richard on this… and I’m frankly astonished how many other posters seem to be siding with the big corporation over the little guy, apparently just because they feel entitled to new corporate product without any concern over creators’ rights.

Copyright, as a legal concept, is a temporary thing. The intention of it is (or was, originally) to allow creators (writers, artists) to benefit from the exploitation of their creations for a reasonable time, the better to encourage new work, and then let those creations pass into the public domain.

Modern corporations have turned all that on its head, and Disney (although I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “evil”) has been behind a lot of that. The Mouse was created in 1928, and the legal duration of copyright keeps getting extended enough to keep it covered… not to benefit any actual creative person or even their heirs, but to benefit corporate execs and shareholders.

In the case at hand, Jack Kirby created (or co-created, with Stan Lee) brilliant, enduring characters and concepts that have made *millions* for people who had *nothing* to do with their creation. “Work-for-hire” contracts at the time were little better than indentured servitude. A basic sense of justice suggests that the creator, or in this case his heirs, should at least be entitled to a slice of the pie.

I’m not familiar with the precise legal details in this case (I’m more familiar with the Superman one), but I’m sure nobody (on either side) is suggesting that the properties be hidden away from public view; there would be no point in that. The proposition is merely that the profits generated by bringing them to the public be shared with the family of the man who made it all possible. What could possibly be wrong with that?

the old man says:

Nicely put together Chris M..

John says:

ok i only mind if it doesn`t affect anything in the Marvel fashion or the important stories Marvel is planning if this doesn`t affect any of the important villains and settings and plotlines in the marvel franchises that are needed to be used i will be okay but how the hell could they buy iron Man 2 and Spiderman 4 they are writing tons of Spiderman 4 scripts and aren`t they alkready filming for I2 it comes out next year ok even if it doesn`t lower the Pg-13 rating of most movies i still think Spidey and Iron man stay with Marvel for a little while unless i`m sure it doesn`t affect anything to do with those characters at all i`m not sure if i care what they do with Avengers, Thor, etc.

John says:

Oh what i mean is, i just want Marvel to put the stories they were planning to put in those movies and nothing disney-related changes the story and that the movies don`t go too goofy

hli says:

yeah i don`t want anything to extreme to happen in the movies

Rogers says:

If anything disneyed makes something happen in the movies I don`t like, I might just cry and leave the movie theatre.

Bob Smith says:

Any time Disney is sued over intellectual property rights is a good thing. I guarantee you the Eisner family isn’t suing Marvel, they’re suing Disney, because they don’t want to see their father’s creativity and hard work be completely swept under the rug like Disney has done with nearly all “their” works.

MarcusFenix09 says:

The Argument of Kirby’s family getting the rights and monies for all the comic characters he created is like me saying that because my great grandfather and Grandmother were slaves I should be able to sue companies, take over those companies and reap their profits. I know, I know its a bad analogy…but you see how dumb it sounds. If said companies are able to be sued for bad business decisions 60 years ago. then who is to say that other companies cant be sued…is there a statue of limitations? and if so when does it end.

Chris M. says:

Marcus, you admit it’s a bad analogy, so why post it? I don’t even want to touch on the issue of slavery reparations, except to note that nobody is even remotely talking about “taking over” any company.

Is the company in question here still *profiting* from its business decision (not a bad one at all, just an unjust one!) decades ago? Yes, because copyright law still applies… so claims by the creator’s estate are certainly still relevant. When copyright expires and the properties pass into the public domain, then at that point the question of ownership rights becomes moot. Not before.

Page 2 of 2«12
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Name (*required)

 Email Address (*private)

 Website (optional)

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.