Marvel Hit Once Again By Estate For Some Spider-Man, Doctor Strange Copyright Terminations
from the protect-artists dept
It's no secret that we haven't been huge fans of the termination rights that exist in current copyright law. Not because we don't want original artists to be able to profit from their own work, of course. Rather, the problems are that copyright is already simply too long, which makes the termination issue far too often not about artists themselves profiting from their work, but rather about their families doing so. Add to that the more salient issue that these termination rights tend to be mostly useful for creating massive messes and disputes between parties over the validity of termination requests and the fact is that this stuff gets really icky really fast.
But, the current reality is that termination rights in the law exist, so there is no reason why creators shouldn't use that part of the law. You may recall that a decade ago Marvel was hit by a series of termination requests for copyrights on all kinds of superhero stories and characters by Jack Kirby. Kirby's estate lost in court every step of the way up to the Supreme Court, with Marvel arguing that all of Kirby's work was work for hire, but Marvel and the estate reached a settlement before SCOTUS could take up the case. For termination requests for work that occurred prior to the Copyright Act of 1976 coming into force, how those requests should be ruled upon is still an open question.
But perhaps we have another shot at getting clarity on this and, what do you know, it concerns Marvel yet again. Another creator has petitioned for termination on some specific copyrights around Spider-Man and Doctor Strange.
In a move that will have copyright lawyers at The Walt Disney Company sweating, the estate of comic book artist Steve Ditko has filed two notice of copyright termination with Disney/Marvel with regard to the copyright for both Spider-Man and Doctor Strange. What makes the notice of termination hard to achieve for creators and their families comes down to the classification of how it was created. Marvel will no doubt make the case that Ditko created Spider-Man and Doctor Strange as "Works for Hire," which would give Marvel the copyright permanently and not entitle the Ditko estate to any compensation. Ditko's family will make the argument that these creations were made by Ditko and then sold/licensed to Marvel at the time (perhaps under an unfair deal) which would make them not a work for hire creation.
I obviously don't currently have access to whatever contract was in place between Marvel and Ditko, if one even exists, so I cannot be certain that there wasn't some work for hire provision within it. But this sure as hell sounds like Jack Kirby all over again. I fully expect Marvel to make the work for hire argument, which will hopefully come along with some kind of written document. If it doesn't, it seems certain that this will once again end up in the courts. From there, the only question is whether or not we get final answers through the court system, or if this also ends up in a settlement.
As of this writing the notices from the Ditko estate say that the termination will become effective on June 2, 2023 and that for Doctor Strange the termination will become effective on June 9, 2023. Marvel and Disney will no doubt fight these copyright termination notices so look for further updates on this to happen in the coming years (this will almost certainly take a while).
But what is certainly not in question is that cases like this, successful for the original artists or not, throw into sharp relief the contrast between the messaging from Marvel as to the reason for its regular aggressive copyright enforcement -- to protect content creators and artists -- and Marvel's willingness to bus-toss those very same artists over copyright should it mean retaining all of that sweet, sweet cash it makes.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, doctor strange, spider man, steve ditko, termination rights, works made for hire
Companies: disney, marvel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
BUT ITS FOR THE ARTISTS!!!!!!!!!!!
Copyright, making everything way more complicated and costly for the public to make sure they never gain a benefit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't worry, Mickey Mouse is going to fall out of copyright in about 3 years so expect Congress to urgently decides that copyright terms need to be extended again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why are copyrights held by private individuals (and other rights over exclusively associated information like name and identity) even inherited at all, especially without an express specific wish by the individual to transfer the rights to their heirs upon their death?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Honestly I would love for Disney to lose the rights to Spider-Man and more Marvel properties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Its not hard.
Copyright gives rights regardless of having no contract
Contracts gives rights based on the contract regardless of copyright.
This is a contract case not copyright, as long as one of the parties can produce a contract I would expect it to be relatively simple.
You can't terminate a copyright you don't own. Or at least have not granted rights to in perpetuity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What complicates it is that back when these characters were created the contracts didn't routinely include the kinds of provisions that'd settle the work-for-hire status cleanly. That's likely a combination of complacence on the part of the publishers plus being able to argue the status of the creators as either employees or freelancers depending on what was more advantageous at the moment. Inevitably, though, stuff like that comes back to bite you.
My bet is that Disney will settle, because without clear contract terms the question of work-for-hire is going to come down to depending heavily on the employment classification of the creators: freelancer or employee of the publisher. Disney and a lot of other interests really don't want legal precedent set (especially at the Supreme Court level) saying that that comes down to how the employer treated the worker, and any precedent there favorable to Disney is going to upset the applecart for a lot of interests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think they. Ll settle otherwise they could lose the rights to characters that make billions of dollars, one example the creator of the winter soldier got nothing apart from payment as a work for hire writer even though the character is used in major motion pictures
When spiderman was created no expected it to be a character in movies that make millions of dollars I'd expect since the 90s marvel and dc are very careful when writing contracts for artists and writers to spell out who owns the ip
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's just a shameless money grab. Probably will be settled at some point unless Disney wins fast. Even if they did win, literally the only thing they could do with the copyright is to sell it back to Disney.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Copyright, copyright
Friendly neighborhood Copyright
Wealth and fame
Its adored
Settling its reward.
Lookout!
Here comes the copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
7 years and not a minute longer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They won’t lose the rights; if anything, this would create a co-licensor situation similar to what DC likely has going on these days with the Siegel and Schuster estates in re: Superman. Marvel—well, Disney, if we’re being accurate here—could still license out and use Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, and the rest, but they would have to work with (and compensate) the Ditko estate on such matters.
I don’t think any of this is good—copyrights on those characters should’ve expired at least a couple of decades ago, no one should be allowed to inherit copyrights (and profit off them), and corporations suck in general. If I were forced to say which side I was on in this fight, though? Well, I have a six-word reply for that:
Kill the Mouse; take his House.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
trademark all the things!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Mickey Mouse is going to fall out of copyright in about 3 years"
Well, "Steambot Willie" is falling out of copyright, I think. However, given that Disney's been busy churning out derivative works that means very little - anyone trying to put up a pic of that "out of copyright" imagery will get hit with a lawsuit over it's resemblance to the currently active Mickey Mouse.
The House of Mouse has means. Copyright law is so convoluted it's become a napoleonic code by now, as long as there's any lawyer willing to spend the time filling out a cookie-cutter form to churn up a ridiculously expensive lawsuit for the defendant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is more of a "contract" vs "copyright law at the time" issue.
And the fact that copyright can change retroactively after a work was created, regardless of the contract. Which is a huge stupid point of copyright law. And how there is no clear ownership tracing available to all.
But that's details compared to the larger problem at hand.
Copyright needs to be changed, both in duration and scope.
A duration based on the life of the author is bad enough as it is unpredictable. (An author could die the day after authorship, or live another 50 years...) Adding basically a full additional life-time is just crazy, and doesn't incentivize the author to create new works after his death. (Until we manage to make necromancy work in real life at least.)
As for the scope, there is a proper duality between "idea" and "expression" that is sadly too unclear to be reliable in copyright disputes. The law should be clearer about the fact that only a very particular "expression" is protected. You should be able to claim copyright on a particular story of Batman, not the idea of Batman's adventures entirely. (Sadly, it has been ruled the other way in court and you can copyright an entire character.)
How can you defend your work on Batman against people claiming to write Batman stories? Authorship. You're the original author and you can prove it, so you're free to tell people that someone else's works are not canon. That's all the power you should have.
(In this case, obviously, claiming that the original author acknowledges your work to build credibility is as much of a fraud as claiming to be the author of someone else's work.)
If the public prefers to stick to the canon material, all the best to you. If they consider that other authors did better work from your original idea, all the best to them. That's how you encourage competition and reward quality, how you incentivize good creation rather than the industrial production of trash.
Also, canon recognition could be monetized, if it comes to it. This way, anyone can create anything (by himself or by being asked to), then the original author (or his "estate") can make a (free or paid) announcement that this is canon. "Work for hire" becomes essentially obsolete. The clauses of the "canon" contract would rule, be it in a one-time payment or share of sales or anything else. No need to alter the whole copyright law to share money in creative ways.
Also, public domain needs to be actively defended for two reasons.
(Not sorry for the rant here. :D)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yeah, I've got some bad news about Bob Kane, son.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yes, if the facts of this case were entirely different, it would be simple.
Huh? Of course you can. That's the entire point of termination: you can terminate the sale after 56 years.
I think perhaps what you mean is you can't terminate a copyright you never owned. Which is true, and the question is, were these work-for-hire, or were they sales?
And given what happened in Marvel v Kirby, I expect these suits will get settled before any of them get to the Supreme Court, because nobody knows how SCOTUS is going to rule and neither side wants to risk losing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]