On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:17:29 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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?
The Superboy rights are separate. Siegal pitched the idea to DC within a
year of Action Comics #1, but DC didn't take him up. He did a second
pitch
a year or so later, and, again, DC didn't buy it. Then in 1944, while
Siegel was in the service, DC started publi****ng Superboy stories (drawn
by
Shuster), without any deal with Siegel. That led to his heirs
successfully
gaining the rights to Superboy after Siegel's death. Those rights were
confirmed in 2008, and DC is still appealing that case.
--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg
|
