The British Court of Appeals upheld the original British verdict that the familiar white-and-black costume couldn't be considered copyrighted because it wasn't art. Instead, the costume has been considered "industrial design," and therefore only allowed to keep copyright for 15 years after creation. British Lord Justices Rix, Jacob and Patten considered the look of the Empire's cloned warriors to have a "utilitarian," rather than artistic, purpose, and denied Lucasfilm the right to enforce their US copyright in the United Kingdom.

It'll be interesting to see how this ruling could affect future British copyright cases. Can British companies now produce merchandise based on any movie or television designs, as long as they're older than 15 years, and use this as a defense? The Cybermen have been around for almost three times that long, let's see if someone's brave enough to test the BBC's legal wrath.

George Lucas loses court appeal over Star Wars costume copyright [Times Online]

The Hollywood Reporter's Heat Vision blog confirmed Spider-Man's inclusion, and mentions that, although the character first appeared in a story by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, Kirby was "key in the character's early development." But how key, exactly?

Lee has gone on record (more than once) naming Ditko, not Kirby, as the character's co-creator, and Ditko's account of Kirby's involvement tends to support that argument:

Kirby had pencilled five pages of his Spider-man. How much was pure Kirby, how much Lee, is for them to resolve.

The splash was the only one with a drawing of Spider-man. A typical Kirby hero/action shot. But the costume is what is important... I'm uncertain about the abstract chest design. The closest thing to it is the one on Ant-man. Kirby's Spider-man had a web gun, never seen in use. The only connection to the spider theme was the name.

The other four pages showed a teenager living with his aunt and uncle. The aunt was a kindly old woman, the uncle a retired police captain, hard, gruff, the General Thunderbolt Ross type (from The Hulk), and he was down on the teenager.

Next door or somewhere in the neighborhood there was a whiskered scientist-type involved in some kind of experiment or project. The end of the five pages depicted the kid going toward the scientist's darkened house.

That is the Spider-man "given" to me.

That is the total of Kirby's Spider-man "creation." That is what he "created," brought into existence - five un-used pencilled pages of an unfinished story... Almost all of the bits of this "creation" (the scientist, magic ring, etc.) were discarded/never used. So what is left of the "original creation"? A name, a teenager, an aunt and uncle. Is it to be believed/held that a name or its "idea" could "cause" a rejection "creation" and "cause" others to "create" a complete, accepted, and successful one? How is that accomplished?

Above: Ditko's comparison of Kirby's Spider-Man design to the finished character.

The Kirby family claim seems to be based in Kirby's rejected work - which didn't resemble the character as he eventually appeared, other than the name - and a claim Kirby made in a 1982 interview with Spirit creator Will Eisner:

Spider-Man was discussed between Joe [Simon] and myself. Spider-Man was not a product of Marvel.

This is, again, misleading; that "Spider-Man" also never saw print, but instead became 1959's The Fly, and was a reworking of a previous Joe Simon character (co-created with artist CC Beck) called the Silver Spider. Simon has suggested that the discussion of a character called "Spider-Man" - or actually "Spiderman," according to the unused logo from that time - led to Kirby suggesting the name to Stan Lee years later, at Marvel Comics.

According to comics historian Al Nickerson, as recently as the start of this year, Lisa Kirby, the artist's daughter, rejected the idea that her father was involved with Spider-Man's creation:

I had asked Lisa Kirby (daughter of Jack and Roslyn Kirby) about her father's connection to the creation of Spider-Man. Lisa told me: "Neither one of my parents ever mentioned that my father created him, in fact I have heard my mother correcting people if they alluded to that fact."

So why does he end up on the list of characters named in the lawsuit - and will the battle over Kirby's contributions to this character derail discussion over characters he has a much clearer claim over?

The first lawsuit came within a day of the announcement of the sale, as shareholder Christine Vlatos filed a complaint in a Wilmington court seeking not only a court order to stop the sale, but also "unspecified damages" as a result of the announcement. It's a case that experts dismiss as unlikely to come to anything. But the same may not be true of a similar class action suit against the company:

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of Marvel Entertainment, Inc. (Public, NYSE:MVL) arising out of their attempt to sell Marvel Entertainment to Walt Disney Company. According to Marvel Entertainment the Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS) has agreed to acquire Marvel Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE:MVL) in a stock and cash transaction. Under the terms of the agreement and based on the closing price of Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS) on August 28, 2009, Marvel shareholders (NYSE:MVL) would receive a total of $30 per share (NYSE:MVL) in cash plus approximately 0.745 Disney shares for each Marvel share they own. According to Marvel Entertainment based on the closing price of Disney stock (NYSE:DIS) on Friday, August 28, the transaction value is $50 per MVL share or approximately $4 billion. But according to a previous investigation by a law firm "the transaction appear[ed] to be unfair" to current investors of Marvel Entertainment, Inc. (Public, NYSE:MVL) "by failing to conduct an open and fair auction process for the Company in order to maximize shareholder value".

The announcement invites other Marvel shareholders to come forward to join the lawsuit.

(Via)

The RAE has recently published a report entitled "Autonomous Systems: Social, Legal and Ethical Issues" that deals with such issues, as well as raising questions about when autonomous systems could be considered artificial intelligence:

[A]re autonomous systems different from other complex controlled systems? Should they be regarded either as 'robotic people' - in which case they might be blamed for faults; or machines - in which case accidents would be just like accidents due to other kinds of mechanical failure.

The report comes about, in part, due to the lack of current legal guidelines around these areas, according to lawyer and Imperial College professor Chris Elliott:

It's a very difficult area for the law because the idea that a machine might be responsible for something is not an easy concept at all... If you take an autonomous system and one day it does something wrong and it kills somebody, who is responsible? Is it the guy who designed it? What's actually out in the field isn't what he designed because it has learned throughout its life. Is it the person who trained it? If we can't resolve all these things about who's responsible, who's charged if there's an accident and also who should have stopped it, we deny ourselves the benefit of using this stuff.

The report doesn't come to any specific conclusions other than "We should really start dealing with this stuff," although it takes some interesting detours along the way ("Most young people only encounter [robots and AI] in computer games where the goal is to destroy them!" being one of the more amusing). Nonetheless, it's interesting to see the issues being raised in the first place, and the British legal system struggling to deal with issues of the 21st Century, for a change.

If an autonomous machine kills someone, who is responsible? [Guardian.co.uk]

Nikki Finke broke the news that T Asset Acquisition, LLC, "and related entities that own the rights to the Terminator movie franchise" filed for Chapter 11 on Monday afternoon in Los Angeles, announcing that

[t]he companies will seek to restructure their financial obligations and resolve related litigation and other matters and emerge from Chapter 11 later this year or early in 2010.

According to the New York Times, T Asset Acquisition is a subsidiary of Halcyon, so it's no stretch to assume that the "related litigation" refers to the lawsuits against Pacificor and former Pacificor employee Kurt Benjamin.

Up for grabs in the current legal warfare are the rights to the Terminator franchise, which Halcyon could lose to Pacificor due to bad debt. Considering that it's less than six months ago that Halcyon owners Derek Anderson and Victor Kubicek were being accused of stealing the rights themselves (the suit was settled out of court in April), there's some kind of irony at play here...

'Terminator' Owners File For Chapter 11 [Deadline Hollywood Daily]

The ruling comes as the result of comics historian Denis Kitchen providing evidence (first mentioned as a comment in response to a blog post at comic site Newsarama.com) that more work than just the original Superman story was created prior to DC's purchase of publication rights to the character. While Judge Stephen Larson didn't award the Siegel heirs everything they were hoping for, a significant chunk of the character's initial appearances have now shifted to their favor:

At the conclusion of this final installment regarding the publication history of and the rights to the iconic comic book superhero Superman, the Court finds that plaintiffs have successfully recaptured (and are co-owners of) the rights to the following works: (1) Action Comics No. 1 (subject to the limitations set forth in the Court's previous Order); (2) Action Comics No. 4; (3) Superman No. 1, pages three through six, and (4) the initial two weeks' worth of Superman daily newspaper strips. Ownership in the remainder of the Superman material at issue that was published from 1938 to 1943 remains solely with defendants.

Whether this impacts any other cases surrounding the rights to the Man of Steel and his universe remains to be seen.

Blog@ post gets Siegels more Superman [Blog@Newsarama.com]

In an announcement, the California Court presiding over the ongoing Siegel/DC/Warners Superman case declared that both parties come to an agreement of an impartial expert who can help explain the complicated issues surrounding the case following concerns over the arguments put forward by both sides in the recent trial:

The Court envisions that the Court-appointed special master/expert will not only submit a report in advance of trial, be subject to being deposed prior to trial, and proffer testimony at trial on the issues in question, but will also, in preparing for such tasks, be afforded the authority to appoint experts and other specials to assist him or her in performing those duties.

One of the reasons said expert is needed? Probably to help control such comments as those offered by Siegel family attorney Marc Toberoff, who yesterday unequivocally said

...in 2013, the Siegels, along with the estate of Joe Shuster, will own the entire original copyright to Superman...

The problem being, according to the very legal decision Toberoff was responding to with those comments, that's not necessarily the case:

Although it is true that, should the Shuster estate be successful in terminating the grant to the copyright in Action Comics No. 1, then at that point in time plaintiffs and the Shuster estate, not DC Comics, would hold the entirity of the copyright published in that comic book and would sit, assuming common representation, in much the same position Warner Bros. was said to have sat at the beginning of the negotiations over the Superman film agreement... The problem with this line of reasoning, however, lies in its speculative nature... It is by no means a foregone conclusion that the Shuster estate will be successful in terminating the grant to the Superman material published in Action Comics No. 1.

Never mind the court. We need our own Superman legal expert just to understand who owns what part of the character. Can't we all just agree that Kal-El would want everyone to sort this out without needing to get lawyers involved, anyway?

Judge calls for special master in Superman case [Blog@Newsarama.com]

May 13th has been set as the date for both sides to meet with mediator Daniel Weinstein to discuss whether or not Gordon - whose failure to secure the rights to the comic properly, before offering them to Warners, caused the legal trouble in the first place - owes money to Warners or even Fox as a result of the lawsuit. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Warners are seeking full reimbursement for their costs as a result of the affair, while Gordon's attorneys are claiming that Warners are at fault because they made the movie despite being told that the rights issue may be a problem.

Whatever the settlement, still unsolved will be exactly how much Fox will make from the movie; due to Watchmen's underperformance at the box office, analysts expect the amount to be somewhere around 5% of the film's proceeds, with Warners and Gordon both having to contribute towards that amount.

Date set for 'Watchmen' mediation [Hollywood Reporter]

Variety report that the lawsuit (which we reported on last month) has been settled out of court, although details of the settlement have not been released and no parties involved have been available to comment on it. The lawsuit was brought by producer Moritz Borman, who was suing fellow producers Derek Anderson and Victor Kubicek, as well as production company Halcyon, for breach of contract and unpaid fees, seeking $160 million in damages.

The lawsuit alleged that Borman wouldn't have allowed Anderson and Kubicek to take on the Terminator rights had he known how "shady" they were; while the legal action was unlikely to have threatened release of the movie itself, the settlement means that Warners have one less worry when it comes to Salvation's success. Now, if they could only sort out that PG-13 rating...

'Terminator' lawsuit settled [Variety]

Salvation producer Moritz Borman has started legal action against fellow producers Derek Anderson and Victor Kubicek (as well as their production company, Halcyon), claiming breach of contract and fraud, according to a lawsuit filed on Friday in Los Angeles. Borman is claiming that Anderson and Kubicek "hijacked" the production of McG's new Terminator, failed to pay Borman his agreed-upon fee, and have defaulted on loans necessary to the funding of the movie, and is seeking $160 million in damages as a result of the lawsuit.

Warner Bros., who have American distribution rights to the movie, have not commented on the lawsuit, but must be feeling as if they've been cursed when it comes to legally-actionable science fiction movies this year.

'Terminator' producers in legal battle [Variety]

Gordon - thought by many, including Warner Bros., to be responsible for the confusion over the rights to the graphic novel - has such a great deal as producer of the Zack Snyder movie that he gets a share in the profits... but, because of the lawsuit between Fox and Warners, he also may owe Warners their legal fees from losing the case. The Hollywood Reporter explained:

The better the film does, the more he could pocket as a profit participant but the more he might have to fork over to make Warners whole. That's because Warners claims its agreements with Gordon contain an indemnity clause requiring the producer to reimburse it for any unforeseen problems with the pic.

Neither Gordon nor his litigation lawyer Dale Kinsella would comment, but they have maintained in court filings that Gordon is not responsible for the litigation and owes Warners nothing. Reps for Warners also declined to comment, but several sources said the studio plans to aggressively pursue Gordon for the settlement costs. In court papers Warners said Gordon should be liable "for all damages Warner Bros. suffers as a result of Fox's claims."

It gets better; Gordon himself is blaming his lawyers for the whole mess, and is asking that their malpractice insurance contribute towards any potential costs. Never mind the movie, the legal shenanigans surrounding it are entertainment enough to justify Alan Moore's filmic wrath.

'Watchmen' suit puts producer in odd position [Hollywood Reporter]

The new law - given the extremely vague name "The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act" - makes possessing any "extreme image" produced "solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal" illegal, and some British comic fans are so nervous that we're wondering whether they're reading different issues of Batman than we are. A statement from the fansite Comic Shop Voice reads:

Do you own any of the following:
Wanted (Top Cow)
Batman: The Killing Joke (DC)
Watchmen (DC)
Punisher (Marvel)
Lost Girls (Top Shelf Productions)
Manga (pick a title)
Cerebus (Aardvark Vanaheim)
(The list continues)

Congratulations you are a comic book fan and the government would like to arrest you, fine you, confiscate your comic collection and ask you to sign the sex offenders' list.

The specific subsections of the law that worry the site are mentions of:

· an act which threatens a person’s life (Hold on! Isn’t that how Batman, Punisher, Judge Dredd get anything done?)

· an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals. (A kick in the balls or arse would constitute this, and a kick in the balls is a well trodden part of humour)

Of course, I still don't think anyone would necessarily mistake The Punisher with something designed "solely for the act of sexual arousal," but admittedly and unfortunately, comics have a history of being mistaken for pornography in the eyes of the law. We'd like to think that the British police have more important things to do than crack down on comics, but the truth is that the law doesn't have any exception for media outside of cinema, leaving the medium unjustly threatened. Maybe the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund should look into opening a British branch, just in case...

Comic Shop Voice (Via Fleshbot)

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Italian postal worker Adriana Pichini has filed papers that David Fincher's successful Brad Pitt vehicle - "inspired by" but not based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1921 short story of the same name, and written by Eric Roth - is actually based upon "Il ritorno di Arthur all'innocenza," an unpublished short story she wrote in 1994 that was sent to US publishers. Pichini's lawyer, Gianni Massaro, said that he's unsure at this point if the author will seek financial damages from Fincher, Roth, and the movie's producers:

At this point it's still a matter of principle... What happens next will depend on what the judge rules.

Currently, the case rests with a judge who will watch the movie and read the short story before deciding whether there are enough similarities to allow a court case to move forward. The movie has not been released in Italy yet - it's due out on February 13th - but there is no set date for the judge's ruling.

Curious case against 'Button' in Italy [Hollywood Reporter]

The lawsuit is being brought by shareholders of Stan Lee Media Inc. claiming that they are owed profits from all properties based upon a Stan Lee creation made after 1998... such as all three Spider-Man movies, the two Fantastic Four movies, the two Hulk movies, Iron Man, the three X-Men movies, and merchandise based upon all of the above, in addition to books and comics based upon the characters. The suit names Lee, his wife, Marvel Entertainment and former Marvel CEO Avi Arad as defendants.

On the face of it, the lawsuit is insane; Stan Lee Media, Inc. has only been in existence since 1998, and was originally founded to shop around Lee as a source of IP for media companies looking for new creations, not his 1960s Marvel work, which was clearly owned by Marvel. Well, clearly until a strange 2007 lawsuit when SLM filed a lawsuit against Marvel, claiming co-ownership of all of the characters. Lee himself wasn't behind that decision, however, a fact underlined by the fact that SLM then filed suit against Lee himself, a few months later.

Lee's attorney, Mark Williams, issued a statement saying that "We look forward to a positive resolution for Stan Lee and his family," while Marvel released their own statement, calling the lawsuit "ridiculous." We're just happy for another pointless lawsuit to distract us now that the Watchmen rights have been sorted out. Where's Matt Murdock when you need him?

Stan Lee, Marvel sued for $750 mil [Variety]

Both studios will formally present their settlement to Judge Gary Feess tomorrow morning and request that the court case be dismissed, according to reports. While terms of the settlement are not being released, Fox will not be involved in the distribution of the movie, nor will it make any claim to the Watchmen property moving forward, apparently (although it is believed that the studio will share in profits from the movie's release). Neither studio is confirming the settlement; Warners are refusing to comment, and Fox deny that a final deal has been reached.

Part of Warners' cash may come from the pockets of producer Larry Gordon, whose involvement with the property brought about the rights confusion in the first place; Warners are rumored to be looking at ways to make Gordon pay the studio's legal fees for this case, including possible court action.

Nonetheless, one thing is now known; barring any more unexpected lawsuits, Watchmen will be released March 6th as planned.

Warners, Fox settle over 'Watchmen' [Hollywood Reporter]

After asking Judge Gary Feess to issue an early ruling on Friday about whether or not Fox had the right to block them from releasing Zack Snyder's adaptation of the 1980s classic comic, Warner Bros. yesterday withdrew the request and joined with Fox in agreeing to delay any further legal action until Monday in the hope that negotiations over the weekend could produce some kind of agreeable settlement for all parties.

(For those playing along at home, that means we've gone from January 20th to January 9th to January 12th in terms of an expected resolution to this part of the battle - Remember, at this point, all that's really under discussion is whether or not Fox can delay or stop Warners from releasing the movie altogether.)

This move, while surprising in light of Warners' initial "Hurry it up" request to the court, makes a lot of sense; Feess was, after all, the person who ruled that Fox had "at the very least, the right to distribute" the movie, so rushing him to issue a second ruling that went against that original decision seemed both unlikely and somewhat suicidal at the time. What this may mean is that Warners has realized how difficult a situation they're actually in - both in terms of fighting their case and also managing to release the movie on its original March 6th date, and that they're beginning to come around to the idea that negotiating (and offering Fox some part of the pie) is the best option they have.

Hopefully, by Monday, this whole situation will have come to some kind of conclusion. Although don't be too surprised if we have to tell you tomorrow that everything you know is wrong one more time.

WB, Fox eye 'Watchmen' settlement [Variety]

Literally a day after both Fox and Warner Bros. had apparently agreed to forego a trial and allow Judge Feess to rule on whether or not Fox had the right to delay or block Warners' movie from being released, Warners filed papers that, essentially, asked if he could do it eight days earlier, because they'd really like to know whether or not they should spend all that money on advertising or not. I'm not joking; Variety quotes Warners as explaining,

Because the release date for 'Watchmen' is less than two months away and Warner Bros. must imminently commit to spending tens of millions of dollars on its marketing and promotional campaign for the picture, time is of the essence.

According to court papers, Warners' investment in this movie will amount to somewhere in the region of $150,000,000... making it slightly more understandable that they'd like to see an answer sooner rather than later. Feess is expected to announce today whether or not he'll allow Warners' request, and issue a ruling earlier than January 20th.

Meanwhile, Watchmen producer Lloyd Levin wrote an "open letter" about the situation, posted at filmsite HitFix.com, in which he recounted the experience of pitching the Watchmen film at both Fox and Warners.:

The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of shit they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.

... The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R - for graphic violence and explicit sex - would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio. Unheard of. And would another studio in Hollywood, let alone a studio that didn't show one shred of interest in the movie, not one, have taken such a risk? Would they ever have made such a commitment, a commitment to a film that defied all conventional wisdom?

Only the executives at Fox can answer that question. But if they were to be honest, their answer would have to be "No."

Shouldn't Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils - if any — of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen?

Clock is ticking on 'Watchmen' case [Variety]

The studios have both decided to pass on a jury trial and handle the whole matter with a federal judge who will clearly state whether or not Fox has the rights to block the release of Watchmen on March 6.

Now on January 20th, it's up to U.S. District Court Judge Gary Allen Feess, who earlier ruled that Fox did indeed owns the distribution rights to Watchmen, to decide whether Fox is entitled to a permanent injunction. Which means Fox could block the release of Watchmen, should they so choose. Since we already know that the Judge thinks Fox is entitled to "at the very least" distribution rights, I'm leaning towards the release date getting pushed back.

Although Hollywood Reporter's legal expert warns us not to be too pessimistic.

If the judge blocks the release then it's game over, Fox can demand whatever it wants and Warners will pay (like it did back in 2005 when an injunction was issued against "The Dukesof Hazzard" — by, you guessed it, Judge Gary Feess — and the studio quickly settled for a reported $17.5 million).

But despite the judge having apparently become convinced over the past week that producer Lawrence Gordon failed to do everything required of him to get the "Watchmen" film rights back from Fox in Turnaround, an injunction certainly isn't a given here. Under copyright law, a rightsholder still has to show, among other things, that it will be "irreparably harmed" absent an injunction, and it's hard to see how Fox, which basically sat on its rights as the "Watchmen" project bounced from studio to studio, can't wait until a trial to get whatever money it's entitled to from any infringement.

Fingers crossed everyone, it's been a long road since Comic-Con waiting for this to come out and I don't want to have to wait any longer. At least on January 20th, we'll have some idea where this is all going.

Prosecution offices in India have set up labs to examine suspects who submit to the test. When areas of the brain associated with memory, such as those dealing with smell and sound, light up during the description of a crime, prosecutors see that as evidence of the subject's commission of the crime:

Ms. Sharma, 24, agreed to take a BEOS test in Mumbai, the capital of Maharashtra. (Suspects may be tested only with their consent, but forensic investigators say many agree because they assume it will spare them an aggressive police interrogation.)

After placing 32 electrodes on Ms. Sharma's head, investigators said, they read aloud their version of events, speaking in the first person (“I bought arsenic”; “I met Udit at McDonald's”), along with neutral statements like “The sky is blue,” which help the software distinguish memories from normal cognition.

For an hour, Ms. Sharma said nothing. But the relevant nooks of her brain where memories are thought to be stored buzzed when the crime was recounted, according to Mr. Joseph, the state investigator. The judge endorsed Mr. Joseph's assertion that the scans were proof of “experiential knowledge” of having committed the murder, rather than just having heard about it.

Previously, Indian courts had accepted BEOS results only as corroborating evidence, not proof in itself of criminal activity. Citing the seriousness of the outcome (Sharma received a life sentence), many neuroscientists and bioethicists in the US have stated that the technology, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, has entered the legal system far too soon. But even if these supposed mind-reading technologies never meet the evidentiary standards of courts outside of India, other possible public and private uses exist:

No Lie MRI, a company in California, promises on its Web site to use the scans to help with developing interpersonal trust and military intelligence, among other tasks. In August, a committee of the National Research Council in Washington predicted that, with greater research, brain scans could eventually aid “the acquisition of intelligence from captured unlawful combatants” and “the screening of terrorism suspects at checkpoints.”

Image from Bioedge.

India's Novel Use of Brain Scans in Courts Is Debated [NY Times]