Can Disney get Marvel theme park rights with statutory reversion law?

[ADollarADay]

I don't know what other forum to put this on, so I'll put it here.

I was talking on another forum about Marvel movie rights and how they could reverse back. Basically there's a thing called statutory reversion where an author can claim the rights back to the copyrights they have previously granted a third party 35 or 40 (if publication was granted) years after they were initially granted. This is why James Cameron will most likely get the rights to Terminator back next year. A company can be an author if the work done was "work for hire", so Marvel is the author of spiderman, avengers, fantastic four, x-men, etc.

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I researched and read, it seems like Disney should be able to have the Orlando theme park rights revert in 2034 with a notice given by 2024 at the earliest and 2032 at the latest. I might be completely wrong though as this is just a quick internet research. Would be nice to have someone with a law background chime in.

Below is a chart and some other links, if you don't know what this law is about.

https://www.sunsteinlaw.com/media/2012_01 Copyright_Chart.pdf
http://www.americanbar.org/content/...ht_law_statutory_termination.authcheckdam.pdf
http://dearauthor.com/features/reclaiming-your-copyright-after-thirty-five-years/
https://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch09.html

 

[jade1]

If that's true negotiations will commence much sooner, kinda like a trade with free agency looming.

 

[DanBoris]

I don't know what other forum to put this on, so I'll put it here.

I was talking on another forum about Marvel movie rights and how they could reverse back. Basically there's a thing called statutory reversion where an author can claim the rights back to the copyrights they have previously granted a third party 35 or 40 (if publication was granted) years after they were initially granted. This is why James Cameron will most likely get the rights to Terminator back next year. A company can be an author if the work done was "work for hire", so Marvel is the author of spiderman, avengers, fantastic four, x-men, etc.

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I researched and read, it seems like Disney should be able to have the Orlando theme park rights revert in 2034 with a notice given by 2024 at the earliest and 2032 at the latest. I might be completely wrong though as this is just a quick internet research. Would be nice to have someone with a law background chime in.

Below is a chart and some other links, if you don't know what this law is about.

https://www.sunsteinlaw.com/media/2012_01 Copyright_Chart.pdf
http://www.americanbar.org/content/...ht_law_statutory_termination.authcheckdam.pdf
http://dearauthor.com/features/reclaiming-your-copyright-after-thirty-five-years/
https://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch09.html

First let me say I am not a lawyer, but this provision sounds like it only has to do with copyright not licensing. Disney/Marvel did not give Universal copyright control of the Marvel property, they simply gave them a license to use the characters in theme parks. Since Disney never transferred the copyright to Universal, there is nothing to get back using this provision.

 

[jknezek]

I don't know what other forum to put this on, so I'll put it here.

I was talking on another forum about Marvel movie rights and how they could reverse back. Basically there's a thing called statutory reversion where an author can claim the rights back to the copyrights they have previously granted a third party 35 or 40 (if publication was granted) years after they were initially granted. This is why James Cameron will most likely get the rights to Terminator back next year. A company can be an author if the work done was "work for hire", so Marvel is the author of spiderman, avengers, fantastic four, x-men, etc.

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I researched and read, it seems like Disney should be able to have the Orlando theme park rights revert in 2034 with a notice given by 2024 at the earliest and 2032 at the latest. I might be completely wrong though as this is just a quick internet research. Would be nice to have someone with a law background chime in.

Below is a chart and some other links, if you don't know what this law is about.

https://www.sunsteinlaw.com/media/2012_01 Copyright_Chart.pdf
http://www.americanbar.org/content/...ht_law_statutory_termination.authcheckdam.pdf
http://dearauthor.com/features/reclaiming-your-copyright-after-thirty-five-years/
https://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch09.html

A work "made for hire" is NOT subject to reversion by either the hired creators or the hiring company

http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Loren_BOOK.pdf

Footnote 60, page 1339

"However, another important consequence of
the exclusion of works made for hire from the types of agreements that can

be terminated is that the “author” of a work made for hire, i.e., the

employer or commissioning party, does not have a right to terminate any

assignment or license into which it might enter.60"

All that aside, whether reversion applies or not to the characters used in USO is most likely irrelevant. Jack Kirby's estate and Marvel settled, prior to a Supreme Court hearing, on the rights to the most popular Marvel characters including those in use at USO. If the settlement paid Kirby's estate and acknowledged him as the copyright holder, his estate would have to enact reversion legislation, not Marvel. His estate would then hold the rights and could negotiate with whomever they choose. Given it is unlikely Marvel agreed to give up control, and Kirby's estate agreed to the settlement, it is likely that Marvel either purchased the rights while preventing Kirby's estate from enacting reversion in the possible windows or simply got Kirby's estate to forgo future legislation. As a purchaser of the rights, not the creator, Marvel cannot enact reversion, and as a "work made for hire" Marvel cannot enact reversion.

Disney is not getting the rights back to the characters used in USO through reversion regardless of what fan theories are dreamed up on the internet.

 

[ADollarADay]

A work "made for hire" is NOT subject to reversion by either the hired creators or the hiring company

http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Loren_BOOK.pdf

Footnote 60, page 1339

"However, another important consequence of
the exclusion of works made for hire from the types of agreements that can

be terminated is that the “author” of a work made for hire, i.e., the

employer or commissioning party, does not have a right to terminate any

assignment or license into which it might enter.60"

All that aside, whether reversion applies or not to the characters used in USO is most likely irrelevant. Jack Kirby's estate and Marvel settled, prior to a Supreme Court hearing, on the rights to the most popular Marvel characters including those in use at USO. If the settlement paid Kirby's estate and acknowledged him as the copyright holder, his estate would have to enact reversion legislation, not Marvel. His estate would then hold the rights and could negotiate with whomever they choose. Given it is unlikely Marvel agreed to give up control, and Kirby's estate agreed to the settlement, it is likely that Marvel either purchased the rights while preventing Kirby's estate from enacting reversion in the possible windows or simply got Kirby's estate to forgo future legislation. As a purchaser of the rights, not the creator, Marvel cannot enact reversion, and as a "work made for hire" Marvel cannot enact reversion.

Disney is not getting the rights back to the characters used in USO through reversion regardless of what fan theories are dreamed up on the internet.

You make a good point, not because of the work for hire. The deal between MCA and Marvel has nothing to do with work for hire, Marvel did not do work for Universal, but granted them the license. The point that you make though is that, if your theory is true and Marvel purchased the rights from Kirby and didn't inherit them through work for hire, then they aren't the author and wouldn't be able to serve a termination notice and enact the reversion. The Kirby estate vs Marvel decision is here and Marvel claims it was work for hire while Kirby estate states otherwise. It seems like the decision sides with Marvel, but I don't know. If you are a a lawyer, I appreciate your input.

 

[jknezek]

You make a good point, not because of the work for hire. The deal between MCA and Marvel has nothing to do with work for hire, Marvel did not do work for Universal, but granted them the license. The point that you make though is that, if your theory is true and Marvel purchased the rights from Kirby and didn't inherit them through work for hire, then they aren't the author and wouldn't be able to serve a termination notice and enact the reversion. The Kirby estate vs Marvel decision is here and Marvel claims it was work for hire while Kirby estate states otherwise. It seems like the decision sides with Marvel, but I don't know. If you are a a lawyer, I appreciate your input.

Not a lawyer. It was going to the Supreme Court back in 2010? when it was confidentially settled. Terms were not released. But again, even if it is labeled a "work for hire" Marvel cannot initiate reversion. "Work for hire" is excluded as per the article I provided.

 

[ADollarADay]

Not a lawyer. It was going to the Supreme Court back in 2010? when it was confidentially settled. Terms were not released. But again, even if it is labeled a "work for hire" Marvel cannot initiate reversion. "Work for hire" is excluded as per the article I provided.

I think you're misunderstanding. Work for hire is definitely excluded from termination rights. That means that Frozen, Elsa, and Olaf are copyrighted by Disney corporation as the authors gave up the rights to those properties as per their contract. That means whoever drew up Elsa can't serve a termination right to Disney 35, 40 years from now. Disney inherits those rights and is therefore the author. That is the same concept that Marvel used against Kirby estate. That's in the court filings I posted dated 7/28/2011. Kirby estate's whole claim was that the work wasn't work for hire and they were going to try to take it to the SC before settling. Mind you, this was the second time Marvel offered to settle out of court, first time was before the lower courts, and the Kirby estate declined at time. The settlement was probably participation or a pay off, but you're right and we don't know what it entitled for sure.

Marvel's agreement with MCA (Universal) is not work for hire. There's no feasible scenario one could make to say that was work for hire. The good point that you inadvertently brought up was that, if Marvel purchased the rights or acquired the rights in any way other than automatically inheriting it through work for hire, then they could never serve a termination notice. If they are the author, it's possible they can. Mind you, I have my doubts, but that's why I'm trying to discuss it here.

 

[jknezek]

I'm not going to argue with you, but the creator, or author, of the works is the only one who can initiate reversion. Under your supposition, that is Marvel. Marvel, however, created the characters with the illustrators and storywriters as "Works for Hire." Therefore the characters, and any agreement Marvel signed for them, are not subject to reversion. Why? Because copyright created under a "Work for Hire" provision are explicitly prohibited from reversion. That is the bottom line. "Work for Hire" copyrights are excluded, by the law, from being able to initiate reversion.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

The idea disney would attempt
To break the universal deal continues to be the silliest thing out there...there is no advantage to them NOT continuing the deal...

 

[ADollarADay]

I'm not going to argue with you, but the creator, or author, of the works is the only one who can initiate reversion. Under your supposition, that is Marvel. Marvel, however, created the characters with the illustrators and storywriters as "Works for Hire." Therefore the characters, and any agreement Marvel signed for them, are not subject to reversion. Why? Because copyright created under a "Work for Hire" provision are explicitly prohibited from reversion. That is the bottom line. "Work for Hire" copyrights are excluded, by the law, from being able to initiate reversion.

I already explained this to you and I'm not gonna explain the same thing again. You just repeated yourself. You might be right, but not for the reasons you are stating.

EDIT: Here:

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

There is, however, an exception to this principle: “works made for hire.” If a work is made for hire, an employer is considered the author even if an employee actually created the work. The employer can be a firm, an organization, or an individual.

 

[jknezek]

I already explained this to you and I'm not gonna explain the same thing again. You just repeated yourself. You might be right, but not for the reasons you are stating.

EDIT: Here:

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

Yes. I agree Marvel can be considered the author. That's why you need to refer to my original quote:

"However, another important consequence of
the exclusion of works made for hire from the types of agreements that can

be terminated is that the “author” of a work made for hire, i.e., the

employer or commissioning party, does not have a right to terminate any

assignment or license into which it might enter.60"

It's pretty cut and dry if Marvel is considered the author because of a work made for hire they can't terminate. They don't have the legal right. If it's not a work for hire, then Kirby would probably be the author and Marvel would have no standing to terminate.

 

[ADollarADay]

Fair enough!