Kryptonite versus DC Comics
Reason for suit: Kryptonite naming rights
Possible New York Post Headline: DC Comics wants to lock out Kryptonite from using its name
Recap: Kryptonite wants to keep name. DC says, “Fuggetaboutit.”
PftL’s Take: In ’83, DC Comics and the Kryptonite company entered a limited legal agreement for the lock manufacturer to use the Krypto prefix on products and marketing. It was all good until DC realized that they didn’t want a name that is thought in the same breath as their Man of Steel to associated with a product that was as good as tying a piece of ribbon to a bike spoke to secure your $2,000 mountain bike from theives. Late last year, DC filed for the infraction, which Kryptonite tried to stop but was overruled. With no settlement in sight, it looks like the case will be going to trial.
Verdict: The outcome of this suit is still pending
Why #10 (tie): The case is not really all that exciting in the grand scheme of things. And in case you didn’t notice, it’s about a freakin’ lock. Snoresville, Daddy-O.
Link: Publisher’s Weekly (Watch out – to read the article, you’ll need to sign up. It’s a government conspiracy, I tell ya.)
Terry Bollea versus Marvel
Reason for suit: Hulk naming rights
Possible New York Post Headline: Marvel says, “No way, Bollea!” to Hogan
Recap: Hogan wants to use Hulk moniker but Marvel wants more money
PftL’s Take: This lawsuit has been off and on since the early 80’s. Marvel claimed the Terry was infringing on their big Green Goliath’s moniker while Hogan (with the backing of the WWF/WWE) claimed that they didn’t have a license on “Hulk Hogan”. Prior to Hogan’s induction in the WWE’s HOF (Hall of Fame for those with acronym difficulties) during the Westlemania XXI extravaganza, he was forced to go by the old WCW/NWO name, Hollywood Hogan, which included a cheesy blacked out stubble beard with traditional blonde goatee and pre-ripped tank. Honestly, it’s not the same guy who drove millions to become Hulkamaniacs during NBC’s Saturday Night Wrestling.
But hold on. It happened that Marvel discreetly sold the naming rights to “Hulk Hogan” to Bollea on February 1, which I find amazing that neither Hogan, the WWE or Marvel said so little about the change in names – it just seems out of nature for those three to keep quiet about anything.
So luckily, saner heads prevailed and now the Hulkster can be call any variation of the Hulk name; so long as Marvel gets some form of kickback.
Verdict: The case was settled out of court
Why #10 (tie): Not thick enough. It's just a sad case of money grabbing by the House of M. Really sad.
Links: Newsarama; NY Post; Pro Wrestling Insider
Carmine Infantino versus DC Comics
Reason for suit: Rights to The Flash and other DC characters
Possible New York Post Headline: Rogue creator petitions for rights for the Fastest Man Alive
Recap: Infantino claims Silver Age Flash, Silver Age Bat-girl, Rogues Gallery and others; DC doesn’t think so.
PftL’s Take: I’ll grant Infantino for infusing some new life into DC especially at a time when the House of Ideas was taking to the house with their creations and leaving DC in the dust. However, this lawsuit feels like a futile attempt by Carmine to get some cash out of DC.
Since the names of the characters were already created prior to Infantino coming on board with DC, the burden of proof to show Infantino’s original conception is that much harder. Even if he stated that he created the Rogues Gallery from his original name, The Colors of Evil. Plus, the length of time between the end of his employ with DC and the submission of the court case was a long time ago. It all seems suspect to this observer.
Verdict: The case was dismissed by Infantino without prejudice
Why #9? This case was more a flash in the pan (all fizzle – no sizzle) since it was in and out of the courts in record time. But with the possibility of Infantino bring the case back, it has the capability of getting ugly quick.
Link: Newsarama;
Verdict Link: Newsarama
Michael Turner versus Top Cow
Reason for suit: Trademark Infringement
Possible New York Post Headline: Aspen tries to grab Top Cow by its udders.
Recap: Turner bolts to self-publishing and wants his creations back; Top Cow still wants to reproduce Fathom issues based on past contract and claimed that all character s created by Turner were Top Cow property
PftL’s Take: With all respects to Christina, this is the first real dirrty suit on the PftL Countdown. Although both parties claim that Turner left on good terms with Top Cow, this suit has all of the ear markings of a bitter divorce.
Both sides want what they think is rightfully theirs – Turner and his rights to Fathom and their supporting cast of characters; Top Cow and their rights to all of those same characters. Like Tina Turner said in “Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome” - “Two men enter. One man leave.” There really should be no doubt who the victor should be in this one? Right?
If truth be told, in this day and age of creator-ownership, Top Cow really should’ve just let bygones be bygones rather than throwing another suit onto the already overflowing paper mountain in our current judicial system.
Verdict: The case was settled out of court
Why #8? There was some nice drama and some harsh feelings but the case was too lopsided to get any higher marks.
Links: Newsarama #1; Newsarama #2; Comic Book Resources
Tony Twist versus Todd McFarlane
Reason for suit: Defamation of character
Possible New York Post Headline: Twist victory may force McFarlane to give up his (base)Balls
Recap: Twist says that McFarlane used his name to make a mobster, which affected him publicly. McFarlane claim not only First Amendment Rights but as well as the notion that anyone could tell the difference between a real live person and one that was in a comic book (or something that sounds similar to that – I’m paraphrasing here.).
PftL’s Take: I can see both sides of this. Twist was a goon on the ice and it really isn’t that much of a leap to make the name into a mobbed up guy. Besides, you have to admit - it is a cool name to have if you want a rep in the kill, maim, and torture biz.
But McFarlane probably shouldn’t have use a familiar name from pro sports to create his gangster. I mean, he’s basically trading on a name that the public recognizes without paying the man. I’m sure if someone came up with a movie about a pencil pusher named Todd “Mac” Farlane, good old Todd would be right in line to file court documents asking for some financial compensation. And Todd, if you want to create a punk named Britt Da Shit, you’ll get no complaints from me. No, sir.
Verdict: As of this date, Tony Twist is walking away with $15 million of Todd McFarlane Inc.’s money. But there are more appeals to come from McFarlane, I’m sure.
Why #7? Again, some good heat, more controversy. Add a good dose of Mr. McFarlane and this one safely secures the seven spot.
Link: Newsarama
Stan Lee versus Marvel
Reason for suit: Denial of Movie Profits
Possible New York Post Headline: Stan The Man wants to take his cuts (out of Marvel’s movie profits)
Recap: Stan wants to be compensated for Spider-Man: The Movie per his contract; Marvel states that his request is merit less and Stan should be happy with his $1 mil a year. (I don’t think that Marvel actually said that out loud but I’m sure that it was said more than once behind closed doors.)
PftL’s Take: I’m confused about this case. There’s a clause in Lee’s contract that stipulates that Stan Lee should be “paid participation equal to 10% of the profits derived during your life by Marvel (including subsidiaries and affiliates) from the profits of any live action or animation television or movie (including ancillary rights) productions utilizing Marvel characters.”
How can anyone refute that? If Marvel’s lawyers are stupid enough to miss that clause, Marvel should fire them after they pay Lee. It’s just seems like this suit is just another frivolous law suit. No wonder there are more lawyers in the country than teachers.
Verdict: While the court awarded Lee the right to his money, Marvel has disputed that ruling. So, the final outcome is still pending.
Why #6? Timing was the key as this suit came up right around Spidey 2 plus when you have Stan Lee, probably the most self-hyped person this side of Master P, there’s always gonna be fireworks.
Links: Newsarama #1; Newsarama #2
Marvel versus Sony
Reason for suit: Spider-Man movie rights
Possible New York Post Headline: Spider-Man the movie - Who’s your daddy?
Recap: Marvel wants out of licensing rights with Sony after completion of Spidey 2 and charges that Sony was pimping Spidey 2 out to other Sony movies. Sony stated that Marvel is mad about being stuck with a non-favorable contract that they signed right out of bankruptcy and wants to break it unlawfully.
PftL’s Take: Wow, what was either of them thinking here? Why were they trying to kill this cash cow (even if Spidey 2 was not supposedly affected)? On the beginning of the super hero movie renaissance, this suit had the opportunity to kill a whole lot of momentum.
As far as the case, it is not so clear cut as some of the others seem. Marvel was acting like a spoiled pro athlete and wanted to renegotiate their contract with Sony. While Sony used the popularity of Spidey to get movie goers to see other Sony films. It really must be hard to cut up a $300 million pie in three sections if you count Stan Lee. (And yes, I know I’m simplifying the actual payout breakdown but it makes for better sarcasm – Trust me.) In truth, both of them are not on the side of the angels here.
Verdict: A settlement was reached after Marvel was denied a jury trial in Superior Court and the Court of Appeals
Why #5? As I said before, this could’ve done a ton of damage to the neo-superhero film movement that was gaining steam. If this case went to trial, it could’ve gotten real ugly for both companies.
Links: Newsarama #1; Newsarama #2
Comic Book Retailers (Brian Hibbs) versus Marvel
Reason for suit: Breach of Agreement
Possible New York Post Headline: Marvel doesn’t want to see their own books (coming back from Retailers)
Recap: Hibbs claimed that Marvel would not accept any books to be returned per Marvel’s own return policy. Marvel denied Hibbs’ claim.
PftL’s Take: Based on a three month lag from order until delivery of comics, the retailers usually get the shaft with overages every time a book ships late or a change in a book’s creative team since people either lose interest or hate the new team. Marvel, unfortunately has been very guilty of doing both things consistently in the late 90’s and the beginning of the millennium. Shoot, tell me when the last time DD: Father by Joey Da Q shipped? (Even if you knew, I have already forgotten the date.)
Now, DC has a similar policy with the retailers but they are somewhat better with returns. Marvel seemed to forget the fact that the retailers are the ones who sell their stuff on a weekly basis. And if they don’t everything in their control to workout a fair arrangement with the people in the stores, Marvel’s sales may see a dip similar to ones last seen in ’92. Hibbs and the others were just looking out for their own business practices with this suit.
Verdict: This case was settled through an in court agreement. However, due to the overabundance of cases in the court system, the actual settlement may not happen until the end of May 2005.
Why #4? Dirty laundry like Marvel trying to stiff the retailers; the retailers calling Marvel’s practices out; the fact that Hibbs put his name in the forefront – almost making this a personal crusade. Very tasty.
Links: Newsarama; San Francisco Weekly
NC Soft versus Marvel
Reason for suit: Character Copyrights infringement
Possible New York Post Headline: Marvel to City of Heroes servers – “Please delete all Marvel-ish skins or you should prepare to be smited by the mystic Mjolinir!”
Recap: Marvel claimed that the skins used on the City of Heroes MMORPG servers are in violation of their character copyright laws. NC Soft retorted by saying that the users are out of their control and have already placed warnings within the game to stop such practices.
PftL’s Take: This case may go down in the annals of legal books everywhere due to this type of application of copyright laws onto a virtual setting. Marvel does have a right to stop the dilution of their product. However, this is a juncture where proper judgment and a sense of reality should take hold of one party in particular. Give you three guesses who.
The use of this law to get to the CoH users through NC Soft is real sleazy. Face it; this scenario is not Napster. Illegal MP3s are a direct theft of goods provided by the artist, record company and distributor. Creating a clone of Cyclops or Ghost Rider isn’t taking any money out of anyone’s pockets nor is it produce revenue for the creator of the skin.
This heavy handiness approach by Marvel, first created and fine tuned by the Disney Corporation, should really stop. Unless Marvel produces their own MMORPG (not including the console X:Men Legends game), they should just allow wishful fanboys and fangirls their fantasies.
Verdict: The outcome of this suit is still pending
Why #3? The possible ramifications to the computer gaming world if a judgment is secured by Marvel; the audacity by Marvel in their efforts to stop the creations of such skins; the deer-in-the-headlights look of NC Soft.
Links: Newsarama #1; Newsarama #2
Todd McFarlane versus Neil Gaiman
Reason for suit: Rights to Miracleman/Marvelman characters and archives
Possible New York Post Headline: Spawn creator tells Gaiman to pound sand
Recap: McFarlane states that he still has publishing rights to Miracleman since Gaiman took the rights to Angela, Cogliostro and Medieval Spawn instead. Gaiman says that McFarlane is lying through his teeth.
PftL’s Take: This fight is a polarizing lightning rod for the comics community. Some fans feel that McFarlane fairly bought the rights when Eclipse went belly up; while the majority of the fans side with Gaiman (since Todd hasn’t really been making any friends out in the comic book community due to his delay on the Image 10th Anniversary HC and his downright refusal to pencil a monthly book).
As this case drags on, it feels like the two participants are becoming more and more hostile towards each other. Maybe they’re not calling each other out like Triple H and Bautista for the World Championship but you can almost sense the animosity growing between them in the interviews they give or their blog postings. Let’s face it; this one is not going to end with hugs and kisses afterwards.
But the real loser in this power struggle is the fans. The Marvelman/Miracleman series was truly before its time. It’s like the NHL lock out; the longer this case continues in the courts, the smaller the window of opportunity for the series be printed becomes. I just wish that one side would either throw in the towel or win without the possibility of appeal.
Verdict: Depends on who you ask, but currently, it appears that Gaiman has won the rights to the film and hopefully, to print the series. But I can’t find anything real conclusive as of this column.
Why #2? Like I said before, there’s a polarizing effect to this case. The litigants are becoming more argumentative towards each other. The legacy of the Marvelman/Miracleman series. But it falls just short of numero uno.
Link: Newsarama
Siegel/Shuster versus DC Comics
Reason for suit: Rights to Superman and Superboy characters
Possible New York Post Headline: Hello, DC Comics? Superman’s parents want their boy back.
Recap: Heirs to both Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster state that the rights to Superman as well as Superboy should be given back to their respective estates and have filed a termination of rights to be done on 2013. DC, of course, thinks that they have already paid the creators for the rights to the Boy of Steel back in ‘47.
PftL’s Take: This is the big daddy of comic book lawsuits. I mean, you can’t get any bigger than the Man in Red and Blue. The whole thought of character rights were unheard of back in the 30’s. Superhero comics weren’t even a blip on the radar when Sups made his big entrance. Once Superman hit the big time, DC was in a different league that the other mags that were taking up space on the newspaper rack at the time.
And in case you have been living in a cave for the last 60 years, DC has profited more than million times over the $100K that they paid both guys for Superboy. Let’s get real here for a second – Without Superman, there’s probably no Batman or demand for any Golden Age heroes. DC would be stuck doing detective pulp rags until they died out. It’s like the Butterfly Effect; but with the benefit of not having to look at Ashton Kutcher for two hours.
The crux of this case is that the date on the termination of rights. If DC sits on their hands and wait until 2013, they lose the right to produce anything new including Superman or Superboy. The ball is in DC court to see if they can take it up a notch and pay the Siegel and Shuster estates a comparable price for the services of The Man of Tomorrow. I know, I know. Look, the old deal is dead. And the old deal was bad. DC should realize that and needs to get this case settled as soon as possible, period. Or there really will be a world without Superman.
Verdict: The outcome of this suit is still pending until 2013.
Why #1? The originators of superheroes; the biggest name in comics that doesn’t have an X in the title (as a Batman fan, that’s hard to admit personally); the rancor that both men felt after DC got rid of them; the possibility of losing such a icon; what more do you need?
Link: Newsarama
The few ones that didn’t make the cut:
The Winter Brothers versus DC Comics, Joe Lansdale, Timothy Truman and Sam Glanzman (Defamation in Jonah Hex: Riders of the Worm and Such) - Link: Comic Book Legal Defense Fund
Tribune Entertainment versus Marvel Comics (Fraud and Misrepresentation to 20th Century Fox in previous suit versus Tribune which supposedly made the TV Show “Mutant X” bomb) - Link: Newsarama
Closing Sidebar: If you haven’t OD’d on our Sin City coverage, here’s a bit o’ news that may pique your curiosity. Playboy, that wonderful institution built on silicon and liposuction, created an online poll for the hottest comic book babe in film. While three choices are from Sin City, there is a good sampling except for two: Halle should be in for Storm not for very unsexy Catwoman and the inclusion of Hanoi Jane’s Barbarella. I don’t remember her comic book out there but then again, the movie was before my time. But, at least, Playboy had the good taste not to include the Lori Petty Tour De Force, Tank Girl. Here the link if you want to participate in a Battle For The Ages (at least with horny fanboys, that is).
That’s all for now. See you next go around. And don’t forget to keep your boards and bags together and keep your continuity straight.
Send column-specific e-mail using the link below. You can also find me reviewing Trades and Graphic Novels at 4-Color Review.
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR |
ARCHIVES
