On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:15:50 -0700, "Kevin" <webman6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>While I agree that the creator of any properties, intellectual or
otherwise,
>is due reasonable payment for the use of said properties, I sincerely
hope
>that the day will come when all lawyers can be legally hunted down and
>slaughtered. Next, we'll hear that Bob Kane's heirs will be suing for
>royalties associated with the "Batman" television series from back in the
>sixties and looking for big, fat checks from Warner Brothers for the
>subsequent "Batman" movies. Damn, I wish I were related to some of these
>people.
Bob Kane is a different case from Siegel and Schuster. He retained
certain
specific rights rather than sign over all rights in perpetuity to DC.
That's why, long before it became the fa****on, Batman comics always listed
the 'created by Bob Kane' credit, all the way back to the 40s.
Also, the rights reversion only can be invoked on specific windows (the
Schuster estate's next window is 2013, and it is expected to follow suit
on
what the Siegel's wife and daughter have done), and is only effective from
the point of the rights reversion. Even if the Kane estate (his daughter
and granddaughter) put in for rights reversion at their next available
window, the reversion would only be effectve from that point forward, not
for anything in the past (under the current ruling, the Siegels only have
claim to stuff published and produced since 1999, and only partial claim
since DC still retains Schuster's rights, at least until 2013).
--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg
|
