Well, now we know what the Marvel-Disney merger means.

[redneckgaijin]

It means, Marvel's creator-rights positions meet Disney's stable of lawyers.

I would be DELIGHTED if Marvel loses this one.

Comments

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

No kidding. Especially given the consistent childhood-raping they've been doing to the characters for the past decade. (I'd also be thrilled if Mickey Mouse and a few other trademarks could be wrested from Disney's slimy claws. I mean, I love WDW, but Disney Corporate... eeugh.)

[tohoscope.livejournal.com]

It'd be nice, but I don't have much hope.

[tohoscope.livejournal.com]

I remember having this discussion when I was a teen. Anybody remember when Destroyer Duck came out? We keep going over the whole work-for-hire thing.

Of course this time it's Disney IP lawyers in the mudpit. So I don't have very high hopes for the Kirby estate.

[dvandom.livejournal.com]

Given that Disney bought Marvel in order to get the rights to its characters (it's not like publishing comics is a moneymaker), I doubt they're inclined to let anything lapse back to the creators. After all, trademark law keeps getting rewritten so that Mickey Mouse never falls into the public domain, Disney Corporate wouldn't have bought Marvel if they thought there was a chance in hell of losing Spider-Man or Captain America.

[scarfman]

I'm sure that's what they thought, but they might have been wrong. After all, this is a countersuit (according to the linked article, or to comments on the article); the Kirby family has already won this once. I'll be watching to see what happens.

[notthebuddha.livejournal.com]

copyright law; there is no time limit on trademarks as long as you keep using them. Superman is still a DC trademark, but some Superman material has passed out of copyright.