• Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...

    CLICK HERE FOR AWARDS

Comics ► What if- Warner Brothers actually lose the rights to its most precious characters



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS
Status
Not open for further replies.

ross61

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
280
What if this legal battles over characters like Superman, Wonder-Woman, and Batman. I'm not saying this is possible, just hypothetical. What would happen to some of the very important staples of the DC Universe. Will they go to another company? Would the role of these characters be taken by their proteges? Some food for your thoughts.
 

Johnny Stooge

Hawkguy
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
6,797
Awards
6
Location
Australia.
It's only Superman that's caught up in the stupid legal battle.


And the answer to your question is never going to happen. Warner Bros. would spend as much money as they need to hold onto Superman and I would hope that Marvel respects DC enough to stay far away from any of this.
 

Dentim

A boy in a playsuit.
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
3,904
Awards
4
Age
35
a more pertinent question would be what's going to happen to disney characters when they become applicable for public domain?

They can't. If it's copyrighted, they could fall in public domain. But Disney has all of their characters trademarked, which means that while the cartoons can fall in public domain, the characters themselves will remain protected for as long as Disney keeps using them in a commercial manner.

When it comes to the copyright, the rules about when they fall in public domain differ from country to country. But suffice to say that in 1998 an act was passed that extended all copyrights by at least half the usual terms after extensive lobeying of different parties. I can see that extension repeating itself if Disney has anything to say about it. The extension only applies to the US though (I think at least) so don't know what would happen abroad.
 
Last edited:

Square Ninja

"special recipe"
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
9,934
Website
www.classicgaming.com
They can't. If it's copyrighted, they could fall in public domain. But Disney has all of their characters trademarked, which means that while the cartoons can fall in public domain, the characters themselves will remain protected for as long as Disney keeps using them in a commercial manner.

that's something they've been fighting to preserve actually
 

ross61

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
280
something to throw in the there.

EXCLUSIVE: A New York federal judge has weighed in on an important case that could be worth billions of dollars and impact the future of Iron Man, X-Men, The Incredible Hulk, Spider-Man, and other iconic super-hero characters.
The case involves the ongoing attempt by the estate of comic book artist Jack Kirby to terminate a copyright grant over his legendary work. After Kirby's children served 45 notices of copyright termination, Marvel Entertainment sued the estate in New York District Court, seeking a declaration that the creations were "works-made-for-hire" and not eligible for termination. The estate countersued, seeking its own declaration that the termination notices were served properly to Marvel.
Last week, New York federal judge Colleen McMahon rejected a bid by Marvel to throw out the Kirby estate's main counterclaim. The judge decided it wasn't a "redundant" claim, meaning she will soon have an opportunity to shake up Marvel's universe, if she so decides, with a potentially devastating future ruling.
But the judge's decision wasn't a complete loss for Marvel. Far from it.
The studio was successful in avoiding an accounting on how much money is potentially at stake. Judge McMahon agreed with Marvel's contention that it would be premature to adjudicate the issue before it's decided whether or not the Kirby material can be terminated.
Marvel also scored more victories in trimming counterclaims made by the Kirby estate, which is being represented by superattorney Marc Toberoff, the same guy who is giving Warner Bros. quite a few headaches over terminated rights to Superman.
Judge McMahon has ruled that the estate's attempt to get Marvel to return Kirby's original artwork is "untimely," barred by the statute of limitations. She has also thrown out Kirby's other counterclaims of breach-of-contract and violations under the Lanham Act. The estate had argued that Kirby was not credited with being the author or co-author of works that served as the basis for recent films The Incredible Hulk and X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
In sum, the judge has narrowed the case to its most crucial issue. Both sides disagree about Kirby's working environment in the 1950s and 1960s when he, along with Stan Lee, conceived many of Marvel's most popular characters. The judge will soon be tasked with looking at Kirby's work history and some of the loose contracts and oral agreements that guided his efforts in those years.
Finally, Disney will be a part of this lawsuit, whether it wants to or not.
Marvel, which was purchased by Disney for $4 billion late last year, had attempted to dismiss its new corporate parent from the proceedings, shielding it from liability. Marvel had argued that the termination notices were sent a few months prior to the Disney acquisition.
However, Judge McMahon rules that it's immaterial, that Disney is now in the position to exploit Marvel's assets -- including the rights that Marvel has to Kirby-created characters -- and that Kirby's claim for declaratory relief must include Disney as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top