Option #2.

Personally, I blame the Kirby Estate's lawyers. They took what looks like (to my layman's eyes anyways) an exteremely weak case and tried to argue that the Kirby's should be awarded the copyrights to the characters. I think they'd have had much better luck suing for a stipend, a'la what Siegel & Schuster got from DC in the 1970's, or what Stan gets from Marvel. Just my .02¢.

Kirby's lawyers shouldn't sue Marvel. They should sue George Lucas, assuming that Kirby has a royalty agreement with DC for New Gods. I think Lucas would settle to avoid the bad publicity.

I don't think they'd have a prayer of winning that case.

I don't either, but I don't think Lucas would want the media coverage either. So far he's done a very good job at convincing the public that he is a creative genius.

I don't either, but I don't think Lucas would want the media coverage either. So far he's done a very good job at convincing the public that he is a creative genius. He would settle.

I wonder what Flamebait thinks of this.

I voted for this one, although there's probably little legal basis for it. Marvel's properties (and DC's, for that matter) should rightfully be in the public domain by now. Since that's not going to happen, I would welcome any change in ownership, even for just a few of the properties, and I feel supportive of actions such as those taken by Kirby's estate as well as the families of Superman's creators. No one could possibly be worse caretakers of these characters than Marvel and DC have been.

Why?

The concept of copyright was intended to foster innovation, not suffocate it. 25 years is enough to incentivise the act of creation, but not so long that it encourages the same creative minds to sit back on their laurels and coast on the profits. 50 years (approximately where most of the Marvel Age characters are) is too long, but I don't believe that many people would consider it unreasonably short. A 20-year-old creating comics or music would have his retirement funded by it.

Should his heirs then own it and profit from it, without having produced any work of value themselves, for generations to come? Should corporations own properties forever?

This particular situation, at best, would result in the latter's properties being transferred to the former. In such a no-win scenario, I'd just rather that ownership change hands.

Sorry. I believe in coasting on the profits.

I hope you're able to do that with your work, Jay.

Thanks. Me too.

I'm also a believer in coasting.

The person that did the work to create something should determine what he wants to do with it -- if he's happy with giving it to the public, good for him. If not, that's fine too.

If I create it, I deserve the reward for it as long as there is a reward and if I want my heirs to profit from my creation that should be my right.

Agreed. I don't see why people are so eager for people who did nothing to make what they love to profit.

I don't see the benefit for a bunch of book and movie companies to make money off of Superman rather than the Siegal & Shuster estates or the publisher that took the risk and invested in the property.

Hanzo & Flamebait = Against Creative Socialism

Seriously -- what's the difference between intellectual property and physical property from a ethical standpoint?

If someone leaves their heirs a house, money, oil fields, company, etc. no one would dream of taking it away from them and giving it to the public. But if someone leaves an heir a creative property, well, it's been appropriated "for the people".

The Heinz heirs didn't do anything to build the Heinz empire -- but I don't think any ketchup company should be allowed to use the Heinz name and brand.

But the "publisher that took the risk and invested in the property" is what it's all about. If you don't uphold the rights of a company that acquires creative property, you're making the future creations of everyone less valuable. I'm not addressing the particular facts of whoever in this case (or whether something is work for hire or not), but that's the reason you uphold acquired rights.

If you always just went "creator gets it," then it would ruin the whole system. No creator would be able to "sell" his creation, or sell his time, or sell anything about his talent, to a company that has the resources to invest in the property. The company says "good luck, I see no reason to invest money in this."

Creators would have to become fundraisers instead of sellers.

I lean towards this, but I think the system of 50 years after the author's death is a good number. Despite what the US courts may have decided, corporations are not people, and at some point, the benefits to culture should exceed that of monetary profits.

IOW, I'm glad anyone with an internet connection can go to http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/ and read a copy of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

Beyond current law, what makes you people think that you have the right to print and profit from what others have created?

There's not a lot of American adventure heroes out there that have the status of Superman. The only one I can think of is Tarzan. IIRC, Edgar Rice Burroughs kept his ownership, and everyone did fine.