In article
<a12b3fb9-15af-4558-9a45-7803ce417c29@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
The Translucent Amoebae <transamoebae@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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 Lester Dent isn't credited for Superman?
>
> 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.
Why? The person that came up with the idea ought to be able to sell it
if he wants.
>
> The Person whose idea it was originally should retain Owner****p of the
> idea for ever & ever.
Why? What if they don't want it? What if they'd rather have the money?
>
> 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 )
Wills don't work that way. And passing the idea on doesn't protect it
from misuse. Case in point: Alvin and the Chipmunks.
>
> 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...???
--
Star Trek 09:
No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg
|
