Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Bazza]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Like that "Shakespeare" fellow a few hundred years back?

And Old Comedy before that. 

[zslane]

Awards like Emmys, Oscars, Golden Globes, and Grammys are won as much on the basis of politics and PR campaigns as they are on merit. This is not surprising since judging such creative endeavors is so subjective, and when there is no clear winner on the basis of merit, voters have to decide on some other basis, which is when the politics and other factors prevail. For instance, an actor who is regarded as "due" an award, having lost many times in the past, will get the nod even if their performance that year wasn't the best by some easily agreed-upon metric. Or maybe the voting body is given a mandate to promote diversity when "in doubt" over any particular category.

 

[Matt the Bruins]

On 9/12/2021 at 8:45 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Unless its changed, the Marvel Universe has earth as a Celestial Egg, which explains why all the superheroes etc.  Its part of the planetary defense mechanism

That was for Alex Ross' Earth-X dystopian future series, not the main in-continuity Marvel Universe. Which isn't to say that they won't use the plot line in the MCU movies. But the official comics explanation is that the Celestials tampered with human genetics about a million years before present, endowing them with the potential for super powers (both mutants and people who develop them in reaction to radiation accidents and such) just as they did on numerous other worlds. Whereas the Eternals offshoot of humanity are the actual Celestial-approved planetary defense system. And there are other factors in play like the earth being aligned with the Cosmic Axis, thus allowing people the opportunity to learn magic, encounter otherdimensional beings and be enhanced, etc.

 

Edited to add: Looking good, Shang-Chi!

 

 

[Bazza]

Marvel Suing to Keep Rights to ‘Avengers’ Characters From Copyright Termination

Blockbuster lawsuits filed today will decide future ownership of characters including Iron Man and Spider-Man.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/marvel-suing-avengers-copyright-termination-1235020110/

[Bazza]

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Marvel almost certainly will win but the creators families do have an interesting argument with the "marvel method" production.  Much stronger than their case against DC.

[Bazza]

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Overall I think copyright extends way longer than it ought to (and reasonably can be defended, in the modern era).  How on earth is Mickey Mouse still copyrighted when its one of the most generic terms and part of pop culture today?  How can someone reasonably get rights to something their grandfather created and earn money on it?

 

But Busiek is right here: if the laws protect the companies, it should protect the creators as well in the same manner.

[Bazza]

Generalisation:

 

Pop culture is corporate & involves money.

 

Folk culture is the people’s culture & is public domain. 

[csyphrett]

49 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 How on earth is Mickey Mouse still copyrighted when its one of the most generic terms and part of pop culture today? 

You know Disney did try to copyright a public holiday for another country

CES

[zslane]

IP laws have been manipulated and twisted so far away from their original spirit that they are little more than corporate profit enforcers. Unless you have an ironclad contract granting you rights to your creations while employed by a company, expect it to be treated as work for hire and realize that you were never legally entitled to anything but your salary. Is it fair? Of course not, but the law isn't about fairness it is about writing the rules in your favor. And guess who's been writing the rules for intellectual property ownership for the last 50 years?

[Ternaugh]

8 minutes ago, zslane said:

IP laws have been manipulated and twisted so far away from their original spirit that they are little more than corporate profit enforcers. Unless you have an ironclad contract granting you rights to your creations while employed by a company, expect it to be treated as work for hire and realize that you were never legally entitled to anything but your salary. Is it fair? Of course not, but the law isn't about fairness it is about writing the rules in your favor. And guess who's been writing the rules for intellectual property ownership for the last 50 years?

 

Sonny Bono?

[Scott Ruggels]

 Sonny Buono, once a member of Sonny & Cher became a Congressman in California. Until he died in a skiing Accident,  He was known as The Congressman from Disneyland, and it was he that extended copyrights to " author's Lifetime, plus 79 years, in 1977. Yes, this is against the original intent of American Copyright, but the laws have been extending the duration since our founding, and especially since Disney's legal department works to keep Mickey Mouse out of the Public domain.

[unclevlad]

Bono, actually, as Ternaugh wrote.  And his bill was life + 50.  It was extended again in '98.

 

And yes, it's obscene.  I'm a big Dorothy Sayers fan...English mystery writer active principally in the 1920's and 30's.  Most of them are STILL covered by copyright because it's year of publication + 95 (!!!!!!) years.  It's ridiculous.

 

Disney might've been the most visible proponent of the changes, but the publishing houses profit as well.  Foundation.  Dune.  Childhood's End.  Stranger in a Strange Land.  Animal Farm.  1984.  All are, I believe, still covered by copyright, and they're nowhere NEAR expiration.  (I think Animal Farm was the first, and it was 1945...so the copyright is in place for almost another 20 years.)  And...lessee...yeah.  There's a Kindle version of it...the publisher's stuck a $10 price tag on it.  Obscene.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Sherlock Holmes still would be but the family decided to not contest it.

[Spence]

 

 

7 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

if the laws protect the companies, it should protect the creators as well in the same manner.

 

4 hours ago, zslane said:

IP laws have been manipulated and twisted so far away from their original spirit that they are little more than corporate profit enforcers.

 

For me I am amused how everyone "forgets" that a really successful "creator" usually morphs into that "corporate entity". 

 

Hurrah for Bob as he makes that awesome indy movie.

---years pass---

Boo, down with Bob the evil corporate studio shill !!!  

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

For me I am amused how everyone "forgets" that a really successful "creator" usually morphs into that "corporate entity". 

 

Usually its not the same guy though.  Disney ran his company very differently than the House of Mouse today

[Hugh Neilson]

I always find it interesting that we treat IP so differently from any other asset.  The author, musician or songwriter created it, but they should lose ownership.  What if the copyright ended at death?  After all, the person who did the work is no longer with us.

 

And we also implement a 100% Estate Tax - after all, the person who did the work to generate the wealth is no longer with us either.

 

I struggle with work for hire as well.  If Ditko wants to share in the wins, like Spidey, should he still be paid for the bombs, like Skate Man?

 

It also gets challenging as new artists add.  I doubt the original lawmakers envisioned decades of continued publication.  If Bernie Wrightson should remain the owner of Swamp Thing, what do we do with Alan Moore’s reinterpretations?  Do we measure from the first day the character appeared, or the last? When Robin reaches copyright expiration, does that only cover Dick Grayson, or do Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Stephanie Brown and Damian Wayne go too?  What about their supporting casts?  Or do all five, and all trappings, expire with Batman?

[Bazza]

3 hours ago, Spence said:

 

 

 

 

For me I am amused how everyone "forgets" that a really successful "creator" usually morphs into that "corporate entity". 

 

Hurrah for Bob as he makes that awesome indy movie.

---years pass---

Boo, down with Bob the evil corporate studio shill !!!  

 

So...George Lucas? 

[Bazza]

A unique case in all of this is H P Lovecraft who let his friends incorporate* on what he created and develop it with their own additions. 
 

*licence freely may be more apt. 
 

And what about bands? If a group of musicians, form a band, release music and break up later, should the date of “death” be when the band broke up? Or what if it was the date of the earliest member of the composition; in which case the songs John Bonham contributed to would be out of copyright; and if it was when the last person died, then Keith Richard’s music would be perpetually be in copyright. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I am okay with kids having control over rights of their parents' work to keep it from being turned into crap, but its a bit tough to justify them being paid for dad's labor.

 

Quote

A unique case in all of this is H P Lovecraft who let his friends incorporate* on what he created and develop it with their own additions. 

 

August Derleth's work is a lot easier to read and is just as good, especially as at first you kind of get the sense that maybe humanity might be able to win and survive.... never mind.

[Spence]

1 hour ago, Bazza said:

So...George Lucas? 

Absolutely. 

First he was a genius and then he was an evil idiot, all depending on which mob is crying. 

 

But there are many "regular" people that came up with a concept and turned it into a fortune, some even changing the world while they were at it.   Gates and Jobs went from being the "little guy making good" to "mega-corporate evil guy using slave labor". 

 

Writers are just another grouping.  Smart ones are flush with cash while the "not as smart" or "not as lucky" get little or no benefits from their original ideas. 

 

It isn't a matter of whether I agree with a case or not.  They just are. 

 

Bob has a great idea but dies not have any ability to bring it to reality.  So he approaches Sara who has the wealth and resources to bring the idea to life.  

Sara sinks millions of dollars, has the skills and knowledge to hire thousands of specialists required and the infrastructure to support them. 

After the thing takes off and the money rolls in, after all the moneys are re-paid, all the expenses are paid, the taxes and fees and licenses are paid.

After all that the actual remaining profit is determined.

Who gets what?  Who gets the larger portion.

Does Sara who bore all of the real world risk and put in the long hours and work wrangling the thousands of details needed to get something from concept to reality?

Does Bob who had an idea and spent time advising and critiquing the process?

 

I don't know and I definitely know I would not want to have to try and decide that.

 

But one thing I do know is that the "public" is notorious for loving the cheering on the underdog.   Right up till they become successful and they become that evil rich guy.

 

It is even worse for small startup companies.  Successful corporations are the modern equivalent of dark evil gods to be instantly hated by everyone. 

 

 

 

[Bazza]

So basically, the “sell out”. We like you while you were unsuccessful, or mildly successful, but as soon as you go “mainstream” we don’t like you anymore. 
 

it also occurs to me that art has almost always relied on a “benefactor”. Whether it be the Greek tragedians; or Leonardo da Vinci, to Michelangelo; to upcoming bands signing to a label; or galleries displaying artists works in an ‘art show’; or producers hiring directors to make movies; writers signing to publishers; or councils hiring sculptors to make sculpture; etc; the need of artists for a sponsor is almost universal. Very few are self-financed. 

[Jhamin]

My take on this is that if a creators makes something that is profitable, they should be able to profit from it but that at some point something crosses over from being a "product" to being "culture" and I don't think someone should be able to own culture.

 

If we could keep copyright forever, then someone would own King Arthur, Gilgamesh, and the Pied Piper.  I don't think that it would be good for us as a society if we had to pay someone a nickel every time we referred to a Shakespeare character by name.  It is *good* that western civilization has a core group of characters that we all can use.

 

If you accept that Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, well, he has been dead for 50+ years.  How long do the people who took over his corporation need to profit from his legacy?  At what point do they need to profit from their own work?  Should Mickey still be owned by a corporation in 2200?  2300?  By that logic there is not "common culture", just the various slices of a pie owned by various people.  Should Bach's descendant's still get royalties because they happened to have a famous ancestor?

 

At some point, for common culture to keep working, Mickey Mouse, Superman, Captain America, and the Ghostbusters need to become public domain.  Opinions vary as to when that should be, but ownership can't be perpetual.

[slikmar]

My problem with the Mickey Mouse argument is that unlike most of the others, that character is the "face" of Disney. He isn't just a cartoon character anymore, he is a representative logo. It's Ronald McDonald or the Gecko from Geico. I can understand Disney not wanting him on public domain. I think he is a different case then many of them.

 

It was mentioned that do we not give credit to writers who really elevated a character. Do we give Thor's creator credit or Williamson who really brought the character popularity. What about Burns, who seemed to breathe new life into so many characters and redefined them in ways still used today.

 

Miller with Daredevil and Batman.

As Spence was saying, I don't know and wouldnt want to be the one deciding.