In article <XD9Ij.909$NU2.56@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"windowwasher" <windowwasher@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "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?
And how is this interwined with the SUPERBOY rights?
--
Star Trek 09:
No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg
|
