Comments on: Comic Fans Turn on Creator’s Rights

by: Kevin Bahrt

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:12:59 +0000

That might be how intellectual property should work in the USA but if some kids can sue for their parents work, which was sold almost 60 years ago, then it seems to be treated as similar to physical property. This doesn’t even sound like they are to reclaim supes for ethical reasons, just sounds like a money grab from some greedy kids.

by: Kunoichi

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:21:46 +0000

But intellectual property isn’t the same as physical property. I can’t honestly think of anything else in the world quite like intellectual property, other than other forms of intellectual property than most people think of (a chef’s recipes come to mind, in which case “selling” the “rights” to his recipes does *not* preclude him from using those same recipes at another restaurant). The drastic difference between intellectual property and real estate is at a very basic level. Intellectual property is not like a house or a building, but like a public park, a museum, or a memorial. The entire point is to share it with as many people as possible. Not only that, the value of intellectual property is entirely subjective, *and* the supply of said property is theoretically limitless.

Now, I, like Thomas Macaulay, do not think copyright should extend past the life of the author, and much prefer the way copyright is treated in Japan and with many webcomic artists - essentially, very open fair use rights.

by: Kevin Bahrt

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:43:41 +0000

I fully agree with coloauialist. To use a different metaphor.

Let us say that I am a genius programmer. (NOT SUPPORTING MICROSOFT!!!!!!!!!!!!) I have purchased the rights to a specific file classification system to use in an OS I am writing. I have purchased said system in the knowledge that it is now mine to do with as I please without having to worry about any crap about copyrights and who gets what, so to save myself some headache in the future I have paid said price so that I may freely use said filing system. I have written my OS, released it and driven all Windows products into the pavement destroying them forever, now the kids of the person who wrote said filing system are demanding a piece of my profit. I have purchased a piece of property and invested my own effort and modifications into said property ( I assume all the advertising DC did counts toward this) and now people whose only claim to this is that they were born are demanding money. How should I feel?

by: Jami

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:37:31 +0000

I fully expect that there will be some kind of big settlement check and that’ll be the last we’ll hear about this.

by: coloquialist

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:31:24 +0000

Also…
A quick rundown on the ruling from someone in the intellectual property law arena.
http://io9.com/373875/what-copyright-ruling-really-means-for-superman

by: coloquialist

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:22:18 +0000

Hrm. Yeah that mean old corporation. The Big money making enterprise really sucks! Stick it to them. Remove their ability to make money by any means possible. Decrease the margins so that they operate with FEWER people to produce their good. Lets then expect the same quality of good from the company and whine when it doesn’t happen.

Frankly this seems sketchy to me. The creator SOLD the company the rights. At that point his rights are fully divested. How then do his heirs have any claim?

If I sell my condo, can my kids demand a portion of any sale or rent income that the new owners recieve? That question sounds rediculous. So does the idea that the child of a creator (owner) who sold the entirety of a piece of intellectual property should be able to demand a portion of the income derived by the use of that intellectual property from that point forward. It is the same situation: just replace “intellectual property” with “real estate.”

It does seem as if DC has gotten screwed on this point. Despite the assertion that the asset was obtained via shady business practice, a business has a right to make money. DC makes money by presenting new and old intellectual property (assets) in a published graphic medium. Here DC is being deprived of a portion of income from an asset that they should legally have without contest.

by: Charlie

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:02:43 +0000

Tip for artists who find themselves in a position like Jery Siegel and Joe Shuster (e.g., you created a work, you sold your interests in it, years later you wished you had it back):

Section 203 of the Copyright act of 1976 allows authors to terminate the transfer after 35 years for any reason. This right cannot be transfered or waived by contract so the author always retains this right. So if you find yourself creating the next superman and give it away for peanuts before it becomes huge, 35 years after the transfer you can get it back.

by: fiftywan

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:13:12 +0000

Kunoichi i right to a certain extent (depending on the type of work, it’s either life+70 or creation+120 or publication+95).

More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Public domain is not for tomorrow…

by: Tugboat

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:50:04 +0000

75 years after the death of the author.

Anyone getting their panties in a bunch over some justice for artists finally happening (oh no!, the great big corporation is going to have to PAY people!) is a Yancy streeter.

by: Kunoichi

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:35:39 +0000

I thought copyright was the life of the author plus seventy (or more, not sure how long Disney has made it now) years?

U.S. copyright is such a fucked up system, and they act like it’s somehow international…even as they frequently ignore copyrights in other countries…