"William George Ferguson" <wmgfrgsn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7972v3t0dtqbkkdc6riq5dcttuu9npcql3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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).
>
>
Re the Siegels. Why since 1999, William? Did they assert rights reversion
then and it wasn't honored? Being a nonlawyer it seems unjust to me that
one
can sell all rights and then call a mulligan after the fact. Didn't Siegel
sell all rights in perp. He didn't assign the copyright under contract did
he?
|
