Posts Tagged ‘Legal’

111 items.

A Plagiarism Carol

by Colleen Doran on August 9th, 2011
Posted In: Blog, Creator Resources, copyright/trademark, Creator Resources, Creator Resources, Legal

This anti-plagiarism video is from Norway, but if you click the CC button that pops up in the bottom menu, you get closed captioning in English! Awesome! Too funny.

└ Tags: , , ,
2 Comments

MUST READ: Copyhype on the Kirby Case

by Colleen Doran on August 3rd, 2011
Posted In: Blog, Culture, Comics, Comics History, Creator Resources, copyright/trademark, Creator Resources, Legal, Culture, Comics, Marvel Comics

Super-busy today, but can’t let this go by without urging you to read this extensive and interesting article at Copyhype on the Kirby vs Marvel case.

Like most people, I did not have a grasp on the way 1909 copyright is applied. Most contemporary creators believe that there was no work for hire provision until 1976. But the 1909 law was not wiped out by the 1976 copyright law. Terrance Hart, who is probably the best art and entertainment blogger out there, explains in detailed layman’s terms.

Factors that a court might consider include “the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.”

Also, MStein popped in with some comments to the previous Kirby post, with a look at how the Kirby case differs significantly from the Superman rights dispute. A pdf of the relevant documents is here.

It is instructive to read and compare the decision in the Superman case, which explained why Action #1 was not a work for hire and therefore could have the assignments terminated under the 1976 law as the Kirby family contended they should have been able to do.

I’ve angered a few people by stating that I don’t really thing the Kirby heirs have much of a legal case here, but I’m not sure why my stating the obvious is substantive to anyone. I am not a lawyer, so my opinion doesn’t matter much.

The moral issue of whether or not a corporation might see the benefit of granting a substantial gift to the children of a creator is a completely separate issue. I don’t think the art and entertainment industry has a track record of doing that sort of thing.

Creators, the lesson was hard won by our forefathers. Don’t sign away your precious creations without the full understanding of what you are doing. I’ve signed many work for hire agreements, and have never had cause to regret it, because the work for hire contracts I sign with DC Comics are substantially better than anything creators got 50 years ago.

Yet there are many publishers, including small ones who sell themselves as little mavericks fighting against The Man, who will sell you a bill of goods about what they want on the cheap.

You can be Jack Kirby.

Or you can be JK Rowling.

└ Tags: , , ,
11 Comments

Marvel Comics vs Jack Kirby Decision: Marvel Wins

by Colleen Doran on July 28th, 2011
Posted In: Blog, Creator Resources, copyright/trademark, Creator Resources, Creator Resources, Legal

Just received 50 page judgment of the United States Southern District Court of NY in Marvel vs Kirby and counterclaim Kirby vs Marvel.

Grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against Kirby, and denies Kirby’s motion for summary judgment against Marvel.

Key quotes:

The expert opinions of Mark Evanier and John Morrow on behalf of Kirby were roundly dismissed as hearsay.

The court paper goes into Marvel’s business practices with regard to creation of comics and payment of freelancers in detail, so it’s worth a read for that alone.

A 1972 agreement signed by Kirby reads:

And a 1986 document signed by Kirby:

VERY important note here: the “instance and expense test” is applied. I could be wrong about how I’m reading this, but that may be very important for future WFH lawsuit decisions.

If you have ever hired an avaricious also-ran to do minor work, this is great news for you if the also-ran climbs out of the woodwork 30 years later and wants the whole copyright enchilada.

If you are a primary creator doing major work for a big publisher: um, not so good.

Speak up if I’m misunderstanding here.

The conclusion:


Plaintiffs (Marvel) motion for summary judgment granted. Defendant (Kirby) cross motion summary judgment denied. Morrow and Evanier export reports are stricken. Plaintiff’s motion to strike Sinnot and Steranko testimony denied.

Click on link below to go to pdf of court decision. Then click on KIRBY DECISION to download PDF.

Kirby decision

└ Tags: , , , ,
8 Comments

Graphic Artists Guild Statement on Commercial Felony Streaming Act

by Colleen Doran on June 29th, 2011
Posted In: Blog, Creator Resources, copyright/trademark, Creator Resources, Creator Resources, Legal

I’ve not had a chance to go over the bill in detail. I’m in deadline hell. I encourage you to read the bill which is presented in its entirety at the Graphic Artists Guild site.

“A bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.”

There are crazy rumors circulating on the internet and on blogs that this bill will turn the internet into a police state; parents will go to jail for posting a family video with music or a TV show in the background on YouTube, people will be arrested for singing in public, karaoke, playing Christmas music on a loudspeaker from their house, posting a video of themselves playing a song on an instrument on YouTube, etc.

This bill is to amend current copyright law to include new technology, specifically the illegal streaming of copyrighted motion pictures over the Internet. It is not the introduction of a new copyright bill.

There is no language in this bill that is aimed in any way at individuals making personal use of copyrighted materials as already permitted under the Doctrine of Fair Use, nor does this bill change that section of the law. The Copyright Office website includes a description of what constitutes Fair Use.

The entertainment industry in the US employs far more artists than any other, even more than the publishing industry. Artists create all sorts of content used in television, video, films, games, exhibits, performances and packaging of the recordings of music and motion pictures. The Guild’s mission is to advocate for the economic and professional interests of artists. The entertainment industry, which includes large media companies and corporate copyright owners as well as small studios and independent creators, continues to lose revenue due to increasing piracy of their copyrighted works.

Terry Hart at Copyhype breaks down the bill in detail and explains how it works from the perspective of an IP attorney.

Other factors support the idea that most internet users have no reason to worry about this bill. The Department of Justice’s Prosecuting IP Crimes Manual lists several considerations for US Attorneys to keep in mind when deciding whether to bring charges. Among the considerations specific to IP crimes:

Federal criminal prosecution is most appropriate in the most egregious cases.
Limited federal resources should not be diverted to prosecute an inconsequential case or a case in which the violation is only technical.
Federal prosecution is most appropriate when the questions of intellectual property law are most settled. Victims have a broad range of civil remedies that include restitution, damages, punitive or quasi-punitive damages, injunctions, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.
The sources or manufacturers of infringing goods and services are generally more worthy of prosecution than distributors.

└ Tags: ,
Comments Off

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Rescue Spider-Man Comic from nefarious evildoer.

by Colleen Doran on May 22nd, 2011
Posted In: Blog, Colleen's Work, Creator Resources, Legal

Just came in my mailbox, and printed here with permission. Name redacted by request.

As you know, sometimes it takes me quite awhile to finish off commissions and get orders out. I keep good records in case anything goes astray in transit. A customer wrote today to let me know a weeks-old international order for Orbiter original art had not yet arrived. Fortunately, I had the customs form number on file.

Here’s what happened to the art.

Hi Colleen, hope things are well. The good news is the artwork has finally shown up and is now safely in my hands. I say “shown up” because apparently it was delivered about two weeks ago when I wasn’t home. Instead of leaving it in my mailbox, the mailman asked my neighbour’ s son if he could hold on to it and give it to me later. The little turkey said yes, but really meant “I’ll keep it for myself”. So on Friday his father ended up seeing the art and asked where he got it & he had to confess that it was mine so they brought it over and his Dad made him apologize.

However….the kid then told me that you had included a greeting card (which he threw away, of course) and a Spiderman comic that he traded to a local comic store for some hockey cards (this IS Canada after all :) ). So yesterday I took the cards to the LCS and tried to get the book back with no luck. The store owner told me he wouldn’t give it back since the cards weren’t worth as much as a signed comic. When I pointed out the cards where the ones HE traded for the book i the first place, he told me it wasn’t his fault the kid was stupid. SO I called a friend of mine who’s a constable with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, told him what was going on & got him to call the store. he told the owner that because the book was stolen, the boy had no right to use it any business transaction. Since the owner now KNEW the book was stolen, any refusal to return it could result in him being charged with possession of stolen goods. And since he had put the book up for sale already, he could be charged with SELLING stolen goods. That was enough to get him to change his mind (though not his attitude) about giving back the comic. When I went back to pick it up this morning, he called me a Nazi at least twice for calling the cops on him. I found that somewhat amusing since I’m VERY chinese and I ‘m pretty sure Nazis would have just killed him instead of calling the police. TO add insult to injury, my RCMP buddy told me I was not legally required to return the hockey cards to him (not sure how that works, oh well). I was going to give them back anyway because I have no use for them, but he was being such a jerk I decided to hold on to them instead.

So I now have the Spidey book in my collection and I thank for including it, even though you didn’t have to. The Orbiter page is on my dinner table under a couple of phone books. The kid folded it a bunch of times. so I’m trying to flatten it out. As for the greeting card, he couldn’t remember what it said but I thank you for the card as well.

And what have I learned for all this? From now on send everything to my work address.

Now I’m going to get a drink and watch my neighbour’s son cut my grass. (Insert Evil Laugh HERE).

Since our limited edition books are so valuable, I’ve mentioned before that I always hold a quantity back in case something goes wrong. Now you know why.

The reserves are now back on the market. Click on our book shop for info. Only three volume I limited editions left.

And thanks to my readers for your kind patronage. The Amazing Spider-Man #326 comic was something extra I included for this reader. I like to surprise people with a little something extra special once in awhile.

Bad. Bad comic shop. Should have learned something about do-right from all those superhero comics he sells.

Bad. Bad sticky fingered kid.

I hope he enjoys lawn work.

c

└ Tags: , , , , ,
8 Comments