A court case that may decide the future of comics

[trappedslider]

or at least who gets the money.

Next week the Supreme Court will chose which cases to review and then hear. However one of them deals with who really own a number of marvel characters.

"Spider-Man, Thor, The Hulk—who truly owns the copyrights to these and other legendary Marvel characters? The estate of Jack Kirby wants to take back rights from the famed comic book creator’s former employer, but Marvel says those products were “works made for hire.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kirby-v-marvel-characters-incorporated/

I'm going to guess that this really wont impact the movies much if at all.

 

[Umbran]

I expect the court will come down on the side of Work For Hire, in general. The general idea that you can sell/agree to give your copyright to someone else is well established at this point. The principle is sound enough.

Did Kirby get the bad end of the deal? In retrospect, yeah. Nobody really knew how much these things could be worth, so the deal turns out to have been bad for him. But that the deal didn't lead him to get rich doesn't make it legally actionable.

Was there some irregularity along the way that should mean the Kirby estate really has the rights now? That, I won't speculate on, as it requires far more detailed knowledge of the events.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, it's a pretty well-entrenched concept. You can sell your rights to something; and he did. If someone then proceeds to invest decades of work and millions and millions of dollars in the thing they bought to make it worth more, that's unfortunate (for you, not them). It's partly a risk equation - the company risked treasure and time; they reap the reward of that risk.

 

[tomBitonti]

Ugh; a bit of a slog, reading through the brief.

The core of the case seems to be the nature of Kirby's relationship with Marvel: Was he working at Marvel's direction and expense sufficiently to make the works he produced for Marvel works for hire.

The court said yes, although, it noted that determining this involved some difficulty.

There are other matters brought up in the appeal, which seem to relate to whether the court changed meanings when they made their ruling. (This part was hard for me to work through, and I'm uncertain as to whether I'm understanding it correctly.) Also, there seem to be some question in regards to the timings of the various laws and rulings.

I'm curious as to what the court found of interest in the case. Did they see it as an opportunity to provide clarification? Is there an issue of considerable merit in the brief?

Thx!

TomB

 

[trappedslider]

I'm curious as to what the court found of interest in the case. Did they see it as an opportunity to provide clarification? Is there an issue of considerable merit in the brief?

Thx!

TomB

I'm guessing the wider implications, since SCOTUS expressed interest in the case and ordered Marvel to respond.

Here's a more in depth article that explains some of the history of the case http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2205772

Also back in 2011 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of Marvel as did the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit back in 2013. If the Court rules in favor of Kriby that could open the door to retroactive payments for pre-1978 employment that was termed "Work For Hire"

 

[frankthedm]

So was there ever any specific contract that it was work for hire? Because the only other vaguely similar case I'm familiar New York Times Vs. Tasini, SCOTUS sided withe the content creator.

 

[tomBitonti]

So was there ever any specific contract that it was work for hire? Because the only other vaguely similar case I'm familiar New York Times Vs. Tasini, SCOTUS sided withe the content creator.

That's covered in detail in the brief. There was no contract, but the length and continuous nature of the work, and other factors, led the appeals court to conclude that the work was actually work for hire.

All of the details of the discussion are more than can be quickly presented, at least, without spending more time working through the text than I can provide right now. But, my understanding would be a layman's, so others should probably provide any summary.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Umbran]

That's covered in detail in the brief. There was no contract, but the length and continuous nature of the work, and other factors, led the appeals court to conclude that the work was actually work for hire.

The concept there is not uncommon. I'm used to it from the other side - where the contractor or otherwise non-permanent employee is looking to up their status to full-time employee for benefits and earned time off, and such. Here, it is on the other side. Kind of... like being a common-law employee.

 

[tomBitonti]

I've been trying to make an analogy that captures the nature of Kirby's relationship with Marvel.

So far, my best fit is something like:

*) As a home building contractor, I'm needing designs for landscaping.

*) Every week, I show a designer several locations that I'm working, and some parameters for what the intended owner is looking for.

*) Through the week, the designer gives his best shot at creating designs that fit the locations.

*) At the end of the week, the designer shows me what they've come up with, and I purchase them (or not) according to a fixed schedule of prices.

*) After a few showings, I and the designer repeat this pattern, both of use becoming comfortable with each other, I with the quality and reliability of the designer, and the designer with the regular payments.

I do have some problem of whether this is actually an employment relationship. As with the appeals court, the question is not immediately answerable, but must rely on particular details of the work relationship, and the several guidelines created by the main relevant laws and precedents.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Umbran]

I've been trying to make an analogy that captures the nature of Kirby's relationship with Marvel.

So far, my best fit is something like:
...

*) At the end of the week, the designer shows me what they've come up with, and I purchase them (or not) according to a fixed schedule of prices.

*) After a few showings, I and the designer repeat this pattern, both of use becoming comfortable with each other, I with the quality and reliability of the designer, and the designer with the regular payments.

To the point where, generally speaking, you give the designer a need, and they spit out a design, and (perhaps with a few edits) you almost always buy it. You ask very regularly, and you almost always take their offerings. When this becomes nearly automatic, and is over long periods of time, it looks more like a regular employment relationship, and less like an occasional contract.