Home Blog Page 6

Marvel Comics: A Sad Tale of Copyright Lost

0
Artist at work

Kids dream of being a superheroI’ve always loved comic books.  I grew up reading my dad’s old superhero comics from the ’60s, Mad Magazine, and Archie (Jughead is awesome), and I still love tough girl comic books like Wonder Woman, Fray, and Buffy Season 8.  After all, who doesn’t dream of being a superhero?   But I am not a comic book geek.  I can’t talk to you about storylines and before a few weeks ago the only comic creators I could name were Stan Lee and Joss Whedon.

Thanks to Marvel Comics: The Untold Story, however, I have learned more about the history of comic books – and have come to appreciate comic books more – in the past few weeks than in all the decades before that.

Real comic book fans will mock me for this, but before I read this book I didn’t realize how different Marvel was from DC in the way Marvel’s superheros lived in real cities (like Spiderman living in New York) and dealt with real enemies (Captain America fighting the Nazis).  In addition, they were all part of the same universe, often interacting with and impacting one another.  Marvel was also viewed, especially during the late ’60s, as much more hip and relevant to pop culture.  Stan Lee became an icon on college campuses and to other artists such as Mario Puzo (who had originally been very dismissive of him) and Federico Fellini.

Stan Lee and Marvel also changed the way the writer (e.g., Stan Lee) and artist (e.g., Jack Kirby) interacted.  Instead of providing artists with full scripts, Stan would just give the artists a plot synopsis (or sometimes they’d come up with the plot lines together) and the artists would then go draw the story – determining page-by-page pacing and deciding plot details.  The full story would then be returned to Lee, who would then fill in the dialogue.  This came to be known as the Marvel Method.

Comic book illustrator

The artwork was amazing too.  Jim Steranko, for example, used his role as artist for the Nick Fury comics to explore art – using geometry tricks and eventually quadruple-page spreads that meant you had to buy two copies of the comic and lay them together if you wanted to appreciate exactly what he did.  Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, along with many other Marvel artists, also showed that illustrating comics was a true art form and one that allowed for plenty of social commentary.  Unfortunately, I read the book on my Kindle so I wasn’t able to see any actual examples of the artwork described in great detail in the book.  I haven’t had a chance to look at a hard copy of the book yet but I hope it actually includes some of this amazing artwork!

Legally, however, the Marvel saga – and that of comic books in general – has a sad side.  Under U.S. law, all the brilliant superheros that Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and others created never belonged to them because of a cruel exception to the general copyright rule.

In general, copyright protection is established the moment an artistic work is created in fixed form (i.e., the moment a picture is drawn or words are written on paper).  Copyright protection means that the work created automatically becomes the property of the author of the work (who is usually the creator).  Under Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act, the owner of the copyright (usually the author), has the exclusive right to do certain things (or has the right to authorize others to do these things), such as reproduce copies of the work or prepare derivative works based on the original creation.

Unfortunately, there’s an exception to this general rule that the creator is the legal author of a copyrighted work.  In the case of “works made for hire,” it’s the employer (in this case, Marvel) that is the author of the work.  Section 101 of the copyright law defines a “work made for hire” as, among other things, a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment.  Without authorship, the actual creator – Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko – has no right to control what happens with the characters and does not profit from their use. (Stan Lee, of course, has profited more than the others because of his close affiliation with Marvel, which has given him a cut of various deals, but that’s apart from the profits he should have received as the creator of so many superheroes).

It is this cruel exception to the general copyright rule in the U.S. that doomed so many comic book artists – and not just at Marvel.  For example, Jerry Siegel, who co-created of Superman, was treated horribly by DC Comics, depsite how much they profited from his creation.  Stan Lee himself even commented once on how the comic book market is the worst market for creative talent, in part because the creator doesn’t own his own creations.

And Roy Thomas, who became Marvel’s editor-in-chief after Lee was promoted to publisher, said that he tended to reuse old Marvel superheros in his work because he knew Marvel would own anything he created and he hated the thought of them – not him – making money off of TV shows or movies based on characters he created.

Different comic book artists and writers have tried to wrestle back control of their creations over the years but they’ve generally been unsuccessful.  After Jack Kirby died his estate sued Marvel to recover the right to the iconic heroes he had created, such as the Hulk and the Fantastic Four.  In 2011, however, a federal judge granted summary judgment in favor of Marvel because it found that Kirby’s work for Marvel was “work for hire.”  In other words, despite creating what came to be known known as The House that Jack Built, Kirby and his family had no right to profit from his Marvel creations beyond what he had initially been paid (a fraction of the billions made off of his characters by Marvel and Disney).

So reading this book has made me appreciate comic books much more than I ever had before.  On the other hand, it also  makes me sad for all the brilliant artists who have seen their works taken away from them because of the “work for hire” exception to the general copyright rule.  But I appreciate the fact that they did what they did, for so little, so that so many could appreciate their work.

Being a Super Hero Only Looks Good in Comic Books

0

Many people hear the call of service and want to wear body armor and a cape. However, this is a profoundly bad idea. The law strongly disfavors ordinary citizens becoming vigilantes. Moreover, we have no known aliens with amazing powers, individuals enhanced by government experimentation or human hybrids with other humanoid species flying around major US cities.

With that said, who doesn’t like comic book super heroes? And for all the super lawyers out there, what legal issues are there in fighting crime after being given a magical amulet?

Vigilantism is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals.”

“Vigilantism” is also defined under case law as “unreasonable self-help action by citizens that tends to disrupt the administration of the criminal justice system.” State v. Johnson, 1998 NMCA 19, P 15, 124 N.M. 647, 954 P.2d 79.

So, what does this mean for all of our comic book super heroes? Let’s review the different types of heroes to see who is a vigilante vs those engaging in law enforcement.

Criminals Are a Cowardly Lot…

Comic characters who take up arms and hunt criminals are with little question vigilantes. Examples on one extreme would be the Punisher and the other Batman.  Both lost family members and took up arms to stop criminals.

There are obvious differences between the two, besides Marvel and DC. Punisher kills, where Batman has rules against killing (unless you are Darkside in Final Crisis). However, while the Punisher is not operating under any color of law besides avenging “justice” by killing criminals, Batman at least has tacit consent by Gotham City’s use of the Bat Signal to call for Batman’s help (perhaps showing Batman is deputized by local law enforcement).

Brilliant, Well-Funded & Armed

Tony Stark and Hank Pym are prime examples of the brilliant scientists who engineer super-human powers for themselves.

Some of these characters are defined in role playing games are “high tech wonders” and others “altered humans.” The key is whether they are using technology or has science changed their bodies.

For Stark his power is an advanced body armor that serves as a weapons platform; Pym his “Pym Particles” who he used to shirk or grew, depending on the decade and which identity Pym was using to fight crime (Ant Man, Giant-Man, Goliath, Yellow Jacket, or Wasp).

Granted, Batman could also fall in this category given his utility belt and advanced weapons. However, Batman uses more of his body through training as a weapon, where heroes such as Iron Man have built full blown body armor.

Iron Man falls in an interesting category, because the character was originally his alter ego’s body guard. Additionally, with Tony Stark being a Cold War weapons manufacturer, Marvel had a character arguably who was different than a vigilante. The issue would turn on whether Iron Man was operating as Stark’s body guard or going beyond such services (or a private citizen developing his own foreign policy arguably during the Armor Wars, something else frowned upon under the 1799 Logan Act).

Granted, Tony Stark eventually went public with his secret identity and held such positions as Secretary of Defense and Director of SHIELD. Under these positions, Stark was acting within the “police powers” of the Government.

Government Sponsored Heroes

The [fictional] United States Government has created and sponsored various super heroes. The most notable of course being Captain America.

Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress can “raise and support armies…” In a world where villains (especially if sponsored by a foreign power) can blow up buildings, Congress raising an army of super humans would not be out of the realm of possibility.

These heroes might have Posse Comitatus Act issues without specific legislation, but if authorized by Congress, would be the most “legal” form for a super hero to be operating within the law.

State-sponsored heroes would also need to follow the US Constitution and our laws on search, seizure and arrest. With that said, how many times in the comics has a super hero read a villain their Miranda rights?

A spin on this would be Green Lantern. While not authorized by Congress, Hal Jordan was selected by a Green Power Ring created by the Guardians of the Universe to protect Sector 2814. In essence, Green Lantern is a cosmic police officer. While the Guardians are free to create whatever selection criteria for the Green Lantern Corps, there would still be jurisdictional issues of a “alien” government setting law enforcement terms within the United States (or any country on Earth).

However, if a giant red alien shows up and starts eating buses with school children, elected officials probably will let that detail slide.

You’re Not Just Anyone

Superman is perhaps the most classic super hero of all time.

Superman arguably started out as a vigilante for a brief period of time, but since he at first represented “truth, justice and the American Way,” he was a symbol of working within the system.

This was also evidenced in such classics as Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns (where Superman worked for the American government, which had banned heroes) and New Frontiers (which also banned heroes).

On the flip side, if a “person” can jump tall buildings in a single bound and is faster than a speeding bullet, society would accept his help. I mean, who would stop him?

If There Were Heroes…

If there were super heroes, the world of Powers probably would be the most on point on what that society would look like, complete with fans treating the “powers” like sports figures or movie stars. There would be regulation if not an outright ban on being a hero, because society would not tolerate mega-humans blowing up schools or throwing cars at people.

However, we will discuss Who Killed Retro-Girl another time.

Movies That Make Lawyers Think “Wait a Minute…”

0

Lawyers always see the world through code sections and case law.

For anyone related to a lawyer, married to a lawyer, or dating a lawyer, their beloved attorney is constantly analyzing their surroundings. This can make a simple night of watching a movie a challenge.

Take these seemingly harmless movies and what lawyers think of while watching them:

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone:

Harry Potter spent the first 10 years of his life living in the cupboard under the stairs. Where was child protective services?  While the Charles Dickens style child suffrage built character for a later hero, how was that even legal in modern Great Britain?

Wizard Costume Halloween Boy
Wait a minute….they can’t make me live under the stairs…

At this point, the lawyer’s mind starts thinking about the specific language of the relevant code sections.

For example, a California attorney may stop watching the movie 10 minutes into the film to look up “child abuse” under the California Penal Code.

The attorney may focus on Cal Pen Code § 273a(a) and wonder if Harry living under the stairs meet the language of “willfully causes or permits any child to suffer.”

Would the the verbal treatment by the uncle be enough to prove unjustifiable mental suffering?

 

As the series continues, lawyers start thinking about other issues.

For example, whether there was any class action litigation against potion manufacturers is never addressed in the films. Would the litigation be similar to a pharmaceutical case? Lawyers start thinking about that as soon as one student falls in “love” with another due to Amortentia, Cupid Crystals, Kissing Concoction, Beguiling Bubbles or Twilight Moonbeams. On a fundamental level, how were any of those remotely legal and commercially available?

Toy Story 3 & Torture:

Did Toy Story 3 inadvertently sanction torture?

Barbie breaks Ken into disclosing how Buzz Lightyear was re-set by 1) knocking Ken out; 2) tying Ken up; and 2) ripping up his vintage clothes until Ken betrayed the dictatorial Lotso.

The lawyer who starts thinking about this might grab their iPad and look up Torture in their West Black’s Law Dictionary App. This is what they would find:

torture, n. (16c) The infliction of intense pain to the body or mind to punish, to extract a confession or information, or to obtain sadistic pleasure. — torture, vb.

 

Older-Lawyer-Thinking-425x275

The question remains, is destroying vintage clothes enough to cause intense pain to the mind to extract information to be torture?

What do jury instructions say on torture?

Is there any case law on emotional torture by destroying property?

How do I explain this fact pattern to the research attorney on the phone?

Captain America and Back-Pay?

E-Pruribus-Unum

Captain America: The First Avengers ends with Steve Rodgers waking up in New York City after spending nearly 70 years in ice.

Would Captain America be entitled to Army back-pay for nearly 70 years, adjusted for interest, inflation and cost of living increases since World War 2 under the Missing Persons Act, 37 U.S.C. §§ 551-558?

 

The true Geek Lawyer (and a few JAG Officers) would spend a lot of time researching case law dating back to World War 2 for the answer.

It’s a Wonderful Life

Cash-Envelope-200x300

Henry F. Potter kept the Building & Loans’ money that Uncle Billy lost.

Does Potter cover up the extra $8,000 somehow?

Does the bank notice an $8,000 deposit days after the town rallied to save George Bailey?

Is Mr. Potter later tried and convicted for grand larceny?

Think Like a Lawyer

Attorneys are taught in law school to “think like a lawyer.”  A side effect of such training is dissecting scenes of movies for their legal issues. Many of us have learned not spoil a perfectly good evening by asking these questions to non-attorney friends and family.

Movies That Make Lawyers Think "Wait a Minute…"

0

Lawyers always see the world through code sections and case law.

For anyone related to a lawyer, married to a lawyer, or dating a lawyer, their beloved attorney is constantly analyzing their surroundings. This can make a simple night of watching a movie a challenge.

Take these seemingly harmless movies and what lawyers think of while watching them:

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone:

Harry Potter spent the first 10 years of his life living in the cupboard under the stairs. Where was child protective services?  While the Charles Dickens style child suffrage built character for a later hero, how was that even legal in modern Great Britain?

Wizard Costume Halloween Boy
Wait a minute….they can’t make me live under the stairs…

At this point, the lawyer’s mind starts thinking about the specific language of the relevant code sections.

For example, a California attorney may stop watching the movie 10 minutes into the film to look up “child abuse” under the California Penal Code.

The attorney may focus on Cal Pen Code § 273a(a) and wonder if Harry living under the stairs meet the language of “willfully causes or permits any child to suffer.”

Would the the verbal treatment by the uncle be enough to prove unjustifiable mental suffering?

As the series continues, lawyers start thinking about other issues.

For example, whether there was any class action litigation against potion manufacturers is never addressed in the films. Would the litigation be similar to a pharmaceutical case? Lawyers start thinking about that as soon as one student falls in “love” with another due to Amortentia, Cupid Crystals, Kissing Concoction, Beguiling Bubbles or Twilight Moonbeams. On a fundamental level, how were any of those remotely legal and commercially available?

Toy Story 3 & Torture:

Did Toy Story 3 inadvertently sanction torture?

Barbie breaks Ken into disclosing how Buzz Lightyear was re-set by 1) knocking Ken out; 2) tying Ken up; and 2) ripping up his vintage clothes until Ken betrayed the dictatorial Lotso.

The lawyer who starts thinking about this might grab their iPad and look up Torture in their West Black’s Law Dictionary App. This is what they would find:

torture, n. (16c) The infliction of intense pain to the body or mind to punish, to extract a confession or information, or to obtain sadistic pleasure. — torture, vb.

The question remains, is destroying vintage clothes enough to cause intense pain to the mind to extract information to be torture?

What do jury instructions say on torture?

Is there any case law on emotional torture by destroying property?

How do I explain this fact pattern to the research attorney on the phone?

Captain America and Back-Pay?

E-Pruribus-UnumCaptain America: The First Avengers ends with Steve Rodgers waking up in New York City after spending nearly 70 years in ice.

Would Captain America be entitled to Army back-pay for nearly 70 years, adjusted for interest, inflation and cost of living increases since World War 2 under the Missing Persons Act, 37 U.S.C. §§ 551-558?

 

The true Geek Lawyer (and a few JAG Officers) would spend a lot of time researching case law dating back to World War 2 for the answer.

Cash-EnvelopeIt’s a Wonderful Life

Henry F. Potter kept the Building & Loans’ money that Uncle Billy lost.

Does Potter cover up the extra $8,000 somehow?

Does the bank notice an $8,000 deposit days after the town rallied to save George Bailey?

Is Mr. Potter later tried and convicted for grand larceny?

Think Like a Lawyer

Attorneys are taught in law school to “think like a lawyer.”  A side effect of such training is dissecting scenes of movies for their legal issues. Many of us have learned not spoil a perfectly good evening by asking these questions to non-attorney friends and family.