On Mar 30, 9:03 pm, "windowwasher" <windowwas...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "David" <dimla...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:50o0v3ds2e3ualanrv2q1iletp6ul2tct9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > from variety
>
> > Warner vexed by legal Man of Steel
> > Lawyer Toberoff dings Superman
> > By DIANE GARRETT
>
> > He's a superhero to rights holders -- but Kryptonite to studios.
>
> > Last week, attorney Marc Toberoff won a potentially costly "Superman"
> > victory against Warner Bros. for co-creator Jerome Siegel's heirs. The
> > federal ruling, which gives the heirs a stake in rights sold 71 years
> > ago, could put a serious crimp on future plans for one of the studio's
> > most enduring -- and lucrative -- franchises, especially if co-creator
> > Max Shuster's heirs follow suit in five years, when they are eligible
> > to do so.
>
> > As it is, the studio has at least two Superman projects in development
> > -- a follow-up to Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" and "Justice
> > League" -- and it may end up paying tens of millions from the domestic
> > haul of "Superman Returns" to Siegel's heirs under the ruling, which
> > applies to domestic monies for Superman projects since 1999.
>
> > The case is Toberoff's latest -- and potentially most damaging --
> > claim against the studio. The dedicated copyright crusader has pursued
> > claims involving "Wild Wild West," "Dukes of Hazzard," "It's Alive,"
> > "Smallville" and, re****tedly, the upcoming "Get Smart."
>
> > He has gone after other studios, including Sony, but his most
> > high-profile cases -- and victories -- have involved Warners. The
> > studio paid "Moonrunners" producer Robert B. Clark a $17.5 million
> > settlement in a case about similarities between that 1974 movie and
> > the bigscreen "The Dukes of Hazzard." And a federal judge ruled
> > earlier in the Siegels' favor over "Smallville," although that was
> > challenged and the case still being resolved.
>
> > The studio declined to comment on the latest ruling in favor of their
> > legal nemesis, issuing only a statement noting that, "substantial
> > issues relating to the accounting of profits were ruled in our favor."
>
> > Among these issues: international profits, trademark-related revs and
> > profits stemming from Superman fare produced before 1999, when
> > Siegel's heirs terminated the earlier copyright arrangement under a
> > 1976 law.
>
> > To the Siegels, Toberoff's legal maneuvers are nothing short of
> > heroic. The family had been destitute for years after Siegel sold
> > rights to his Man of Steel to Detective Comics for $130. DC Comics had
> > started to pony up more monies after Warners made successful movies
> > based on the character, but Siegel had long wished to redress the fact
> > he had gotten so little from his creation; he died in 1996.
>
> > Toberoff has set up a production company, Intellectual Properties
> > Worldwide, to develop films around these and other titles. And he has
> > built up a sideline business producing bigscreen adaptations of the
> > projects whose copyright claims he pursues. He has a producing credit
> > on "Fantasy Island," a Sony project for Eddie Murphy, as well as
> > "Sanford and Son."
>
> I guess I don't see why the heirs are entitled to money. It appears
Siegel
> sold the rights. Was he bamboozled somehow? Just because someone else
> parlayed his creation and made lots of money after he sold it to them
> shouldn't entitle the creator to a second bite of the apple, should it?
If you come up with a genuinely original idea ( VERY RARE ) that
appropriately greedy people are able to turn into a lot of money, they
the creator of the idea should share in that.
Almost EVERY fabulous idea or invention that we use today is credited
to someone OTHER THAN the person that had the person that had the
original idea.
The way it should work, is that if an appropriately greedy person
wants to buy an idea from someone, they should ONLY be allowed to buy
WORKING RIGHTS to it... Which means effectively JOINT OWNER****P of the
Use of The Idea.
The Person whose idea it was originally should retain Owner****p of the
idea for ever & ever.
The Heirs of the Idea Maker... They should ONLY be entitled to
owner****p of the idea IF THE IDEA MAKER specifically left it to them
in their will, and then; For the principle use of protecting the idea
from misuse...
( Particularly in the case of beloved cartoon characters )
Once the Idea Maker is Dead, the money they made off it can be left to
their heirs, but new money should be PRINCIPLY made by the Living
People that Make the Idea work.
At some point; Great Ideas should fall into the Public Domain.
When...???
|
