INDIE READER: Why Traditionally Published Authors Are Going Indie By Sabrina Ricci

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

NY judge: Marvel wins Spider-Man, X-Men lawsuit

By LARRY NEUMEISTER - Associated Press Writer | AP

NEW YORK (AP) — Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk can save the world from evil through superhuman feats, but it took a federal judge Thursday to decide who legally owns the rights to their lucrative characters.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that they and other Marvel Worldwide Inc. superheroes will remain the property of the company, despite claims by heirs to the artist who played a key role in creating them that they are entitled to the copyrights.

The Manhattan judge cited statements made by artist Jack Kirby before his 1994 death to support her finding that his creations must remain Marvel's property.

She noted that he said in a 1986 affidavit that he did his work at a time when it was common practice that vested ownership of his creations belonged to the company that paid him to draw. She said he also signed a written agreement in the spring of 1972, well after the creation of the characters, admitting that he was not entitled to retain ownership of the work.

Marvel filed a federal lawsuit in January 2010 seeking to invalidate 45 notices sent by Kirby's heirs to try to terminate Marvel's copyrights, effective on dates ranging from 2014 through 2019. The comics were published between 1958 and 1963. Those at issue in the case included The Fantastic Four, The Incredible Hulk, The Mighty Thor, Spider-Man, Iron Man, The X-Men, The Avengers, Ant-Man, Nick Fury and The Rawhide Kid.

Marvel had said the work was done "for hire," a legal term that would render the heirs' claims invalid. McMahon said the plain language of contracts she reviewed made it clear that all of Kirby's work for publications owned by Marvel was work for hire. She said the 1909 copyright law that applies to the case presumed that Marvel was considered the author and owner of Kirby's creations because the characters were made at Marvel's expense.

McMahon said the case had parallels to one involving a book about Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower's account of World War II. A federal appeals court concluded in that case that the book was created at the expense of the publisher and thus was a work for hire.

"Like Eisenhower, Kirby took on none of the risks of the success of the many comic books he helped produce. His contribution to the enterprise was plainly critical, but Marvel, not he, bore the risk of its failure," she wrote.

A lawyer for the Kirby family did not immediately return a telephone call for comment. Kirby is survived by his wife and their four children.

In a statement, The Walt Disney Co., which purchased Marvel in 2009, said: "We are pleased that in this case, the judge has confirmed Marvel's ownership."

___

Follow Larry Neumeister at http://twitter.com/Lneumeister

Lucas loses UK battle over stormtrooper helmets by JILL LAWLESS - Associated Press | AP

LONDON (AP) — The Empire has struck out.

Britain's Supreme Court on Wednesday defeated a bid by George Lucas' company to stop a prop designer making and selling replicas of the iconic stormtrooper helmets from the "Star Wars" films. The court did, however, prevent him from selling them in the United States.

Andrew Ainsworth sculpted the white helmets worn by the sinister galactic warriors in the original "Star Wars" film in 1977, and now sells replica costumes, made from the original molds, over the Internet. Lucasfilm Ltd. has been trying for years to stop him, in a battle that has climbed through the British courts.

Lucasfilm's lawyers argued that the stormtrooper suits are sculptures and therefore works of art covered by British copyright law. Two lower courts ruled in 2008 and 2009 that the costumes were props, not artworks, and so covered by a much shorter copyright period that has now expired.

The country's highest court on Wednesday upheld those decisions. The panel of five judges said "it was the 'Star Wars' film that was the work of art that Mr. Lucas and his companies created. The helmet was utilitarian in the sense that it was an element in the process of production of the film."

But the judges agreed with Lucasfilm's lawyers — and a lower court — that Ainsworth had violated Lucas's copyright in the United States by selling costumes there.

Ainsworth's attorney, Seamus Andrew, said that means the designer may have to pay damages to Lucasfilm for the U.S. sales, but they are likely to be minor because he did not sell much merchandise there. The judges said Ainsworth had sold between $8,000 and $30,000 worth of goods in the U.S.

Andrew said that on the broader issue, "our client won, without a doubt."

He said the Supreme Court had been asked: "Could our client continue to manufacture and sell replica helmets and suits of armor without any form of license from George Lucas? And he can."

Ainsworth, 62, said he was delighted.

"I am proud to report that in the English legal system David can prevail against Goliath if his cause is right," he said. "If there is a Force, then it has been with me these past five years."

Lucasfilm said that "unfortunately" the court had upheld an "anomaly of British copyright law under which the creative and highly artistic works made for use in films — which are protected by the copyright laws of virtually every other country in the world — may not be entitled to copyright protection in the U.K."

The eminent Supreme Court judges may be experts in law, but their ruling revealed gaps in their knowledge of science fiction. The judgment said the "Star Wars" movies are set "in an imaginary, science-fiction world of the future."

Film fans know that they take place "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away."