Comics fans fear that two new British anti-pornography laws ‘could make comic books illegal’. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act would make possessing “extreme pornography” - defined as any “extreme image” produced “solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal” - illegal. Oddly:

Films given an official classification are exempt from the new law, meaning portrayals of such extreme activity by actors will be allowed on screen. However, imitations by characters on paper will not enjoy such an exemption.

The second is the Coroners and Justice Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament. It will introduce a similar law banning the possession of any image involving sexual activity and children. For the purpose of the law, an image is said to contain a child if “the impression conveyed … is that the person shown is a child”.

The comic book campaigners claim that if the new rules are interpreted harshly, their hobby could be criminalised.

What we don’t get is how films that show people actually doing obscene things get a pass while a drawing that was totally imaginary is somehow more dangerous? Huh? Whatever.

This comics fan site presents the dangers and a call to action. They fear the law swould not only ban obvious cases like LOST GIRLS, but more violent material like WATCHMEN and WANTED:

We COULD get to a point where the police could legitimately visit your home or workplace, and sanctioned by an un-elected magistrate or judge go through your collection and if they find any comic book that they feel will cause sexual arousal or displays extreme violence then they could arrest you.

And what is frightening about this law is that it gives them carte blanche to invade our lives, to shut down our comic shops and ultimately it could lead to censorship of books and films as well.

§ Steven Grant looks at the history of Stan Lee and his failed dot-com:

Which led to an interesting phenomenon, though one not so rare in our culture as I’d prefer to believe. Various comics dot-coms wanted me to create something for them in the ’90s, so I dealt, briefly, with quite a few of them. The one thing that struck me, over and over, was how they kept talking about “content” yet none of them wanted anything with content. Or comics, for that matter. Their idea of comics was generally a throwaway idea with some very identifiable (i.e. “marketable”) character that could be turned into a 30 second Flash animation. It was very schizoid, too. They all preferred something vulgar, in order to draw quick attention, or racist or disgusting or anything that would generate an “Omigosh, can you believe someone did that?!!” response, because all of them based their long-range chances of survival on how quickly they could draw huge audiences. But their business plans was generally: “create” media franchises via web technology (the Flash animation); license the franchises to TV and movies for millions of dollars; sell off the company and properties for hundreds of millions of dollars and retire filthy rich, while having positioned as a media mogul.

I dare anyone to need more than one hand to count how many “comics” from those dot-coms became Hollywood movies. Or TV shows. Any? It wasn’t because the dot-com crash wiped them all out. It was because the “content,” almost across the board, had no content. No point of view, nothing to impart. I’m not talking about a controversial stance, I’m talking about nothing more than vaguely recognizable as plot or character. Stories? You should live so long.

Speaking of Stan, we haven’t had time to delve into all the filings on the new $750 million lawsuit against Marvel and Stan, but we took a little peek at some of them and the crux of the matter seems to be that Stan assigned his intellectual property to Stan Lee Entertainment (later Media) in October 1998 and then to Marvel in November 1998. (Although, by our reading, the plaintiffs would have to prove he owned Spider-Man, etc., prior to the Marvel agreement in order for Stan Lee Media to collect.) While that sounds kind of unlikely, it wouldn’t be the first time that Lee had sold two people the same thing.

During the ’70s and ’80s, Lee was Marvel’s ambassador to Hollywood and spent his days busily selling the rights to Marvel’s library to various producers, for drastically less than they are worth these days. Many times these rights overlapped in a way that would make Larry Gordon blush, most notoriously Spider-Man, as this article from 1998 shows:

The seven-year battle over the feature film rights to the Marvel Comics character has become Hollywood’s costliest and most convoluted legal spectacle. There are five lawsuits pending before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Valerie Baker, with as many as 18 separate written agreements at issue.

Last month, a Delaware judge overseeing Marvel’s bankruptcy cleared the California cases for trial, which could begin before the end of the year. But that still leaves Baker confronted with a tangled mess.

“Spider-Man could be a movie, or it could be litigation,” said Howard Weg, an attorney who represents the liquidating trust of Carolco Pictures, which claims to have acquired the movie rights in 1989 but went bankrupt in 1995. “All the entities involved have elected not to make a movie, but litigation.”

Legal wrangling over who owned the rights to Spider-Man — involving Canon, Columbia, Carolco, and James Cameron — dragged on for years and years, but luckily they cleared up just in time for Sam Raimi to take over the franchise, so it’s all good.

Anyway, everyone knows Stan’s memory has never been very good, so he could have just forgotten who he gave the rights to here and there. To which we can only say, you gotta pay attention to these kinds of things.

If you’re a lawyer, everything surrounding the strange history of Stan Lee Media is a fountain of endless, cool, refreshing litigation. Now “legendary” lawyer Martin Garbus is representing Stan Lee Media shareholders in a suit against Stan Lee, Ike Perlmutter, Avi Arad, and Marvel, alleging the shareholders are owed some $750 million in profits from Marvel’s movies based on Lee’s characters.

The shareholders of Stan Lee Media Inc claim in a lawsuit to be filed in New York that Lee, creator of Spider Man, Ironman and Incredible Hulk, transferred all his interest in Marvel characters to SLMI. That entity was placed into bankruptcy by Stan Lee in 2001 and re-emerged in November 2006 with new shareholders, who claim they are owed as much as $750 million.

Lee denies the allegations and has filed his own $50 million lawsuit against SLMI claiming the company has hijacked his name and image and is thwarting his effort to develop such properties as “The Accuser” and “The Drifter” and others via his first-look deals with Disney and Virgin Comics.

We may not be a lawyer, but if Garbus is going to try to prove that Stan Lee had any rights to his characters to ASSIGN to shareholders, we imagine he must also be having a mighty fine sale on bridges, as well. Stan long ago gave up any claim to Marvel characters, although it would be interesting to read the filings.

Other Stan Lee Media legal wranglings involve a previous attempt to sue Marvel for $5 billion, bankruptcy, an SEC suit against former CEO Peter Paul for stock manipulation during the last dotcom boom/bust, and many, many more murky matters, including a Hillary Clinton fundraiser that remains a cornerstone of Clinton-era conspiracy theorists. In fact, on his blog, Paul insists, as he long has, that this case will be a lid ripper of epic proportions:

The suit on behalf of Stan Lee Media, to be filed in Manhattan Federal Court shortly, will expose an array of corporate corruption, government misconduct, cover-ups and obstructions of justice involving former President Bill Clinton, Senator Hillary Clinton, federal Judge Howard Matz appointed by Clinton, the creator of Spider Man, Stan Lee, the Chairman and billion dollar shareholder of Marvel Entertainment, Isaak Perlmutter, and a major Wall Street Law Firm, among others.

This suit, and the reputation and skill of the legendary American lawyer who is bringing it, on behalf of shareholders of a dot com that has been at the center of the 2000-2005 Galagate scandal that caused Hillary Clinton’s finance director to be indicted and tried in 2005 for election law fraud, and finally cost Hillary Clinton the White House, should vindicate former Hollywood “mogul” Peter Paul’s efforts to blow the whistle on the corporate, political and judicial corruption he witnessed and documented since his Hollywood internet studio with pop culture icon Stan Lee, ran out of funds during the dot com melt down of December, 2000.

Yes, it never ends.

Update: Per the comments, I corrected the link to Stan Lee’s 1998 Marvel contract (also the basis of Stan’s 2002 lawsuit against Marvel.) The other link was to Stan’s 1998 agreement with Stan Lee Entertainment Inc, just one of dozens and dozens of lengthy legal documents you can read, that have, we’d guess, been uploaded by the current Stan Lee Media team as they seek to prove their claims of nefarious deeds.

In our very brief rundown of the legal shenanigans involving Stan Lee Media, we forgot Stan’s OWN suit against them. And probably a lot of other stuff. As much as we wish we could draw a pot of tea and spend the whole day digging into this, alas, we have other pressing matters, and we’ll leave you with this Barron’s article to bring you up to speed. We’ll note that someone is going around the web (and our own comments) to hint at further Stan/Pow! mischief.

AND ONE FINAL NOTE: We’ve been covering Stan Lee legal wrangling since 2002, and while we were researching this story, we were sad to find so much previous reporting (including our own) long scrubbed, In some ways, print is more eternal than the Web, boys and girls, and don’t you forget it.

White flag! Warring studios Fox and Warners have released a statement:

“Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox have resolved their dispute regarding the rights to the upcoming motion picture Watchmen in a confidential settlement. Warner Bros acknowledges that Fox acted in good faith in bringing its claims, which were asserted prior to the start of principal photography. Fox acknowledges that Warner Bros. acted in good faith in defending against those claims. Warner Bros. and Fox, like all Watchmen fans, look forward with great anticipation to this film’s March 6 release in theatres.”

Nikki Finke has juicy details:

The deal is finally done, and Warner Bros’ Watchmen won’t be held hostage. I’m hearing that in the settlement, Fox will not be an active distributor of the pic but will receive up to 8 1/2% gross participation in the pic and a piece of everything going forward including a sequel or spinoff, and a cash payment upfront including recoupment of its development costs and attorney fees, and god-only-knows what else. Because neither Fox nor Warner Bros would comment on the terms of the deal.

Sequels and spinoffs? Would that be the prequel domestic sitcom “Julie and Manhattan” about a wacky couple that must share the same atoms? Anyway, the parties will be meeting in the judge’s office tomorrow to tell him that everyone has kissed, made up, and forked over a lot of cash.

Jeff Trexler has more, including some speculation on what would happen if Warners decides to go after producer Larry Gordon.

UPDATE: Variety has even more purported details of the ’secret’ settlement:

Fox, on the other hand, will emerge with an upfront cash payment that sources pegged between $5 million and $10 million, covering reimbursement of $1.4 million the studio invested in development fees, and also millions of dollars in legal fees incurred during the case. More importantly, Fox will get a gross participation in “Watchmen” that scales between 5% and 8.5%, depending on the film’s worldwide revenues. Fox also participates as a gross player in any sequels and spinoffs, sources said.

Angry Colombian coffee growers have agreed not to sue Mike Peters over a Mother Goose & Grimm strip which they found offensive, after he apologized. Peters has even been invited to visit Colombia’s coffee region and see for himself how the coffee is grown. We expect both sides just sat down and discussed their differences over a nice hot cup of tea.

Film Esq. has court papers in which Fox and Warners request a meeting today to “report on a final resolution or, alternatively, to discuss how to proceed on January 20, 2009″ which is the date of another court hearing. Is the end near?

BTW some people claim one WATCHMEN site is listing June 3rd as a new release date, but the way we read that, it’s just the European version of 3/6/09. We could be wrong, of course.

Even as negotiations between Fox and Warner Bros over the rights to WATCHMEN tootle along, Warners is busy planning several things. One of them, unfortunately, is a lot of layoffs:

Warner Bros is considering ways to slash its budget by 10 percent, saving tens of millions of dollars via layoffs or other steps, as the studio nears an expected settlement of a dispute with a rival house over its upcoming “Watchmen” film.

Warner joins rivals from Sony Corp’s Sony Pictures to Walt Disney Co in trying to offset falling film and flat DVD revenues in a rocky U.S. economy.

“No decisions have been made,” said a Warner Bros spokesman regarding the cost cuts, which are widely expected to result in an unspecified number of layoffs at the studio, which released the blockbuster Batman movie, “The Dark Knight.”

Meanwhile, this LA Times piece gives the first idea of what the settlement with Fox may be — perhaps as much as 8.5 percent of WB’s gross on the film. (No mention of that apocryphal Batman TV rights swap, either.) However, both Fox and Warners seem to have found an excellent target for any wrath over the legal misery — producer Larry Gordon, whose bumbling reading of his contracts and subsequent fumbling over court statements has made him the villain of the piece:

The court fight over “The Watchmen” is costing Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, but the biggest bill of all could fall to the film’s producer, Larry Gordon, his lawyers and their insurers, who could be on the hook for substantially more money.

Court documents in the nearly yearlong dispute over the superhero movie’s distribution rights show that Warner Bros., which is poised to lose valuable rights to “Watchmen” after a judge’s favorable ruling for Fox, is pursuing Gordon “for all damages Warner Bros. suffers as a result of Fox’s claims.”

Gordon is no wannabe, having produced such popular fare as “DIE HARD,” “48 Hrs.” and “PREDATOR.” But this time…he may be the one whose world changes forever.

Is this just Hollywood at its worst…or Alan Moore’s black magic taking effect?

Technorati Tags: Alan Moore

To the surprise of few but the relief of many, it appears that Fox and Warners are hashing out this WATCHMEN thing, as THR reports they are “close” to a settlement. Both parties met in private in federal court to talk about the case. For those just waking up from a coma, a judge ruled that Fox still had copyright interest in the film that Warners has been longing to release on March 6.

Neither Fox nor Warners would comment on the discussions, which continued for about 30 minutes in the chambers of Judge Gary Feess. Warners has not pressed its earlier request to move up the Jan. 20 injunction hearing, suggesting a settlement is near.

Other signs that things are getting settled: a new round of WATCHMEN ads during the football playoffs and 24. For the armchair psychologists among you, the final piece of evidence is blogger Michael Cieply’s shrewd interpretation of studio head body language:

From where this reporter sat at the Golden Globes last night, that sure looked like Tom Rothman of Fox and Alan Horn of Warner Brothers down among the superstar seats, smiling and back-patting — each other, not the superstars — just before the show began.

There you have it. Burst tire tread ho!

According to the trades and blogs, Warners and Fox are busy talking behind the scenes to resolve the WATCHMEN spat, and talks are getting…somewhere. Nikki Finke rounds up the news and gossip:

According to court documents, Fox and Warner Bros have conducted the settlement talks since last weekend and made concessions. This is surprising since WB lawyers announced they would continue to fight immediately after Feess announced his intention to rule in favor of Fox for copyight infringement and distribution rights
[snip]
Insiders tell me that this is the first time both sides are trying to hash out a settlement. Of course, Fox has been complaining all along that its approaches to WB have been rebuffed since long before the movie was even made. But I also heard that WB wouldn’t even engage after federal judge Gary Feess recently announced his intention to rule in Fox’s favor on the copyright infringement and distribution angle. Now, sources tell me, “Warner Bros is finally freaked out.”

Finke also mocks a letter from producer Larry Gordon — it was Gordon’s inability to remember ANYTHING about his dealings which prompted Judge Feess to make a special ruling stating that he wouldn’t pay any attention to anything Gordon said from here on out. However according to THR:

Larry Gordon is tired of being the villain in the “Watchmen” dispute. In an unorthodox move, the veteran producer has fired off a lengthy letter to U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess blaming Fox and his then-lawyers for the debacle and offering his version of events that led to the court’s ruling that Fox owns distribution rights to the Zack Snyder-helmed comic-book adaptation.

Reading between the lines of all of this, it’s evident that Fox and WB are finally figuring just how much it is going to cost WB for WATCHMEN to come out in March. Frankly, if we do get BATMAN TV show DVDs out of this mess, it will all be worth it.

As previously reported, Fox and Warners, both embroiled in the legal struggle over the WATCHMEN movie, had agreed to wait until January 20th to have Judge Gary Feess rule on whether Warners would be able to release the movie as planned. However, with the clock ticking, Warners is trying to get the date moved up, as they are already pouring marketing money into a picture that might not open.

Warner Bros. disclosed in court filings that “Watchmen,” which the studio hopes will be a global blockbuster, cost $130 million to produce, with marketing and promotion expenditures pushing the studio’s total investment to “more than $150 million.” On Monday, Fox and Warner agreed to skip a jury trial and let Feess convene a hearing Jan. 20 on whether Warner should be blocked from releasing the movie. But on Tuesday, with the release date less than eight weeks away, Warner asked the judge to begin the hearing eight days earlier, on Monday. The studio is already running trailers in theaters promoting “Watchmen.” “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,” Warner Bros. said in its request.

As always, Film Esq. has more on the legal underpinnings of the latest moves.

You just do not mess with Juan Valdez. Cartoonist Mike Peters has learned that the hard way. The January 2nd edition of the comic strip Mother Goose & Grimm by Peters has greatly upset Colombian coffee growers by referring to Valdez, the fictional mascot for the organization, in conjunction with rumored Columbian crime lords. The Colombian Coffee Growers Federation plans to sue Peters for “damage and harm, detriment to intellectual property and defamation” to the tune of $20 million. Peters, for his part, professes to love Colombian coffee, and meant no harm.

“I had no more thought to insult Colombia and Juan Valdez than I did Pringles, Betty Crocker, Col. Sanders, Dr. Pepper and Bartles & Jaymes,” he said in a statement. “The cartoon is meant to be read along with the rest of the week as a series of which the theme is based on the fact that the inventor of the Pringles can had his ashes buried in one.

“I thought this was a humorous subject and all of my Mother Goose & Grimm cartoons are meant to make people laugh. I truly intended no insult.”

Many late night holiday-themed movements in the WATCHMEN case, and they are enough to make a movie fan’s nerves as frayed as the collar on a pitbull. It seems that, yes, Fox is going to try to stop the movie’s release:

An attorney for 20th Century Fox says the studio will continue to seek an order delaying the release of ‘Watchmen.’

U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess last week agreed with Fox that Warner Bros. had infringed its copyright by developing and shooting the superhero flick, scheduled for release March 6.

Feess said Monday he plans to hold a trial Jan. 20 to decide remaining issues.

Fox claims it never fully relinquished story rights from its deal made in the late 1980s, and sued Warner Bros. in February. Warner Bros. contended Fox isn’t entitled to distribution.

Warner Bros.’ attorney said Monday he didn’t know if an appeal was coming, but thinks a trial is necessary and a settlement unlikely.

Warners fired back with a statement of their own:

“We respectfully but vigorously disagree with the Court’s ruling and are exploring all of our appellate options. We continue to believe that Fox’s claims have no merit and that we will ultimately prevail, whether at trial or in the Court of Appeals. We have no plans to move the release date of the film.”

Jeff Trexler has detailed analysis and links to the court documents so you can follow along at home, including this nugget:

These three filings in particular provide detailed allegations as to how Warner Brothers got into this mess. In a nutshell, Fox claims that it has evidence that Warner Brothers initially relied on an inaccurate chain of title provided by Paramount. Once Warner Brothers was aware of Fox’s documented claims, it nonetheless decided to proceed in a deliberate “business calculation” that it would be more profitable to deal with a court case than clear the rights before making Watchmen.

So for everyone blaming Fox for waiting until the movie was all but in the can to foul the Wheaties, it seems that WB went into this knowing they were gambling with the law. For more, check out the site Filmesq, which has more in-depth analysis and document linkage.

Finally, while fans may be fretting over seeing Carla Gugino in a perky superhero outfit, Paul O’Brien has a useful observation in the comments. Whatever the legal problems here, there’s got to be a dollar amount that will make things all good again — much to WB’s chagrin.

NOTE: Several people have pointed out that “injunct” is not the correct legal term — “enjoins” is more accurate. However “injuncts” contains the comedy sound “K” and I will continue to use it, suckas.

As you may be aware, LA Judge Gary Allen Feess delivered a special Christmas Eve gift to Fox by abruptly announcing that they were the winners in the closely-watched WATCHMEN lawsuit. You’ll recall that even as Warner Bros. has been rolling out the eagerly awaited Zack Snyder film for a March 3 2009 release, Fox filed a lawsuit saying that Warners never had the rights to produce the film since producer Larry Gordon had not properly regained them from Fox. The suit has obviously threatened the planned release date and caused, at the very least, a few beads of worry sweat on WB execs’ brows over this real Christmas crumbler.

The judge’s decision came as a shock, since Feess had previously indicated that Warners and Fox should go to trial in early January. Nikki Finke has more:

But now Feess has abruptly done an about-face, saying he has reconsidered and concluded that Fox should prevail. So Feess intends to grant 20th Century Fox’s claim that it owns a copyright interest in the Warner Bros pic. “Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture,” said today’s written order obtained by the NYT. (A more detailed order is coming soon, according to the court.) Such a ruling could screw up Warner Bros’ plans to release the pic as soon as March. Unless, of course, Fox is just looking for a single payout or share in the proceeds, either of which Barry Meyer and Alan Horn will have to fork over once all the legal fuss dies down. (Warner Bros had a similar problem with the Dukes Of Hazzard pic because of Judge Feess and had to pay tens of millions of dollars to release the film.) Indeed, the judge himself advised both Fox and Warner Bros to settle or appeal. “The parties may wish to turn their efforts from preparing for trial to negotiating a resolution of this dispute or positioning the case for review,” he said. But if WB goes down the appeal road, then Watchman may not come out until 2011 considering the glacial speed with which the court system moves.

Jeff Jensen at EW has the fullest account and most informed speculation on the decision, including the surprising nugget that, contrary to urban legend (see below), Fox HAD approached WB before the movie went into production. WB must have thought Fox was full of crap and went full steam ahead. Oh well. Jensen also has this scenario for how the two studios might settle:

How much will being right ultimately be worth to Fox? Perhaps a lot; perhaps nothing at all. Warner Bros. has been asking Feess to make one more crucial ruling in this case. The judge articulates the studio’s request like this: “[T]o summarily adjudicate the issue of a contractual cap on the amount of compensatory damages to which Fox is entitled.” Now, I am no lawyer, but here’s how I might rephrase Warner Bros.’ position: “Let’s pretend for a moment that Fox is right in this matter. Judge, could you help us decide a fair price for Fox’s rights? Because we can’t.” Perhaps all along, Warner Bros. has been gambling/banking that the judge will “adjudicate” a relatively affordable price for Fox’s rights, or at least put a price tag on it that’s much lower than the one Fox has been putting on it. As Feess has said that a longer version of his Christmas Eve ruling is forthcoming, perhaps the question of value will be determined at that time.

While the uncertainty over what was sure to be a high profile spring film has to come as a blow to WB’s halting (DARK KNIGHT aside) superhero movie efforts, fans would be the ultimate losers if this legal wrangling screws things up. Daniel O’Brien at cracked.com speaks for many with a colorful screed:

If you’re Fox, you patiently waited until the excitement over the movie reached a boner-inducing fever pitch, and then you decided to sue Warner Brothers and, according to the New York Times, you won. On Christmas Eve, a judge ruled that Fox has the right to, at the very least, distribute The Watchmen. Will they try to stop the release of the movie? Probably not, (though they certainly could). Will they try to change it? Again, no. Will they make some fat cash off of it? Certainly. Should they eat all the dicks? Without a doubt.

Developing…

In a controversial decision, an Australian judge has ruled that a man with a pornographic drawing of the Simpsons on his computer is guilty of possessing child pornography, fined him $3000, and given him two years of something similar to probation.

The main issue of the case was whether a fictional cartoon character could “depict” a “person” under law.

Alan John McEwan had been convicted in the Parramatta Local Court of possessing child pornography and of using a carriage service to access child pornography material, the latter of which has a maximum penalty of 10 years’ jail.

The male figures in the cartoons had what appeared to be human genitalia, as did the mother and the girl depicted in the cartoons.

The magistrate said that, had the images involved real children, McEwan would have been jailed.

(more…)

As THE DARK KNIGHT heads toward $1 billion in worldwide grosses, it was inevitable that lawsuits would be filed as unjustly neglected parties sought their rightful pieces of the caped pie, but the town of Batman, Turkey is taking it to the wall. Mayor Huseyin Kalkan is claiming that WB used his town’s name without permission. While simple media rights would seem to be the major factor here, it seems that the film’s worldwide success has taken a considerable toll on the good citizens of Batman:

The mayor is prepping a series of charges against Nolan and Warner Bros., which owns the right to the Batman character, including placing the blame for a number of unsolved murders and a high female suicide rate on the psychological impact that the film’s success has had on the city’s inhabitants.

Former natives of Batman are also said to have encountered obstacles when attempting to register their businesses abroad.

And so another human injustice is heaped upon the world stage. Can nothing be done to help the Batmanians? Perhaps this is a job for…Oswald Chesterfield Cobblepot?

A game of Magic: The Gathering turned violent when pranksters mooned a comics shop in Bellingham, WA and vigilante justice went too far, news sources are reporting. The tragic incident began when three walked into Access Comics, in Bellingham, in an intoxicated state. The three were asked to leave by owner Lanny Wolfe as they were interrupting the game with their antics. The trio left, but came back and mooned the people in the store. Unfortunately, the pressure of their buttocks against the front window of the store caused the glass to break, and an even more unfortunate series of events was to unfold.

Two of the players, aged 19 and 42, took after the mooners. They were armed with a baseball bat. What followed was brutal. One of the victims suffered a broken orbital bone, and another is in serious condition with a life-threatening skull fracture.

What started as fun and games for all concerned now has one man fighting for his life, and two facing felony assault charges.

A video report is up at KING5.com:

§ In Japan, a woman has been arrested for killing her husband. But it was only a MMORPG character that died, and the charge is computer hacking:

A 43 year old woman in Japan has been arrested on suspicion of hacking. She is suspected of ‘mudering’ an avatar of her virtual husband after they apparently divorced in the extremely popular MMORPG Maple Story. The woman allegedly used the login information taken from the virtual ex-husband, a 33 year old officer worker, when they were happily virtually married. If convicted she faces a jail term of 5 years or a fine of $5,000.

§ Meanwhile, in Brooklyn, a high school librarian’s pride over a manga Shakespeare adaptation illustrated by his daughter went too far, when he promoted the book in an unseemly manner: giving away copies for free and slipping a mention into the newsletter he edited.

On Monday, the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board announced it had settled a case it had brought against Mr. Grandt for promoting his daughter’s work. He agreed to pay a $500 fine and admit in a three-page stipulation that he had violated the city ethics code.

Mr. Grandt, who said he was an unwitting villain, was disappointed the board did not see things his way.

“There are so many things going on they could investigate,” he said in an interview, “and they had nothing better to do than allege that my daughter would have gotten 20 cents in royalties if someone bought the book. But nobody did. I gave out free copies. I was just so proud of my daughter for writing it.”

Indeed, if the diligence applied by the Brooklyn library system were applied to, say, the rest of the government, imagine the world we’d live in.

As astounding as it may seem, the youth of today still know who the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are…and they find this cowabunga crowd so fun-filled that they feel compelled to take their admiration to new levels. Dangerous levels:

Three blockheaded teenagers were busted playing in a sewer Wednesday in Queens - after getting lost while pretending to be Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, police sources said.

Schiller Milfort, 16, of Hollis, and Marvin Ottley, 17, of Bellaire, along with an unidentified 15-year-old boy, were shirtless and in their shorts and sneakers when firefighters plucked them out of a sewer in Kissena Park.

The make-believe heroes were crawling around the sewer system when they got confused and lost their way, police sources said.

Police chided the lads by saying, “They were never in danger, just goofing off and being stupid.” We feel this comment is insensitive. These kids should instead be praised for taking cosplay to a whole new level.

Over at Blog@, Jeff Trexler reports that ne of his posts has been introduced as evidence in the Siegel/DC copyright lawsuit. Under examination is the post discussing a collaboration between Jerry Siegel and an artist named Russell Keaton on what appears to be an early version of Superman.

The discovery of this new material set off a heated legal exchange. DC’s lawyers challenged the Kitchen documents on several fronts, prompting Toberoff to defend Joanne Siegel’s ability to verify her husband’s signature and Denis Kitchen’s trustworthiness. DC claimed that the new material was filed too late to be considered at this point in the proceedings; the Siegels argued that DC had made a series of its own “rogue filings” with “unauthenticated evidence.”

The reason why the Siegel/Keaton material has received so much attention lies in one of the hottest issues in the comics business today: work for hire. A creator cannot use termination rights to regain ownership of material created as work made for hire, since the creator did not own the material in the first place. However, the Siegel heirs were able to regain half of the copyright in the Superman material in Action Comics #1 in part because Jerry Siegel had co-authored it before entering into the September 22, 1938 employment agreement with Detective Comics.

More in the link.

More legal maneuvers in the case of Michael George, whose conviction in the killing of his wife has been sent back for a new trial: Although judge James Biernat Sr. did not remove the Macomb County Prosecutor’s office from the case, he has issued a gag order:

But Biernat instead imposed a gag order prohibiting attorneys from speaking to the media about the case, because he said he’s concerned about a tainted jury in an upcoming trial.

Advertisement

“The defense has presented a colorful argument,” Biernat said. “However, the court finds that given the present status (of the case) with the Court of Appeals, it would be inappropriate.”

The Orphan Works law which most graphic artists have been so worried about has quietly been killed tabled in the House, in the midst of all the other Congressional foofaraw this week:

Late Friday, the Senate passed the measure and sent it to the House, where it landed dead on arrival.

The act changes the rules and reduces and sometimes nullifies damages for infringing uses of so-called “orphaned” works as long as there was a “diligent” effort to locate the copyright owner. Orphaned creative works are those in which the copyright holder cannot be promptly located.

Lobbyists have assured Threat Level that the House, which is mired in trying to broker an economic revival package, won’t take up the measure, at least not until after the November elections.

Dozens of copyright groups opposed the measure, saying it encourages infringement. Copyright expert Lawrence Lessig was against it as well. He said the bill was too vague when it comes to defining how “diligent” of an effort is required to locate a copyright owner before a work is infringed upon.

Seems to us we have a lot more to worry about besides the entirely bogus example of Granny’s wedding photos.

That darned Congress! Have you heard? It’s incredible? They passed that Orphan Works bill. Colleen Doran explains::

Worst case scenario: the Senate has passed the Orphan Works Bill and the wording of the Senate bill is even more hideous than that of the House bill. The bill is not law, but may become law if we all do not act now.

That this bill was hotlined without open debate during a financial crises speaks volumes about the nature of this bill, and of those who support it.

Here is a direct link for writing your Senators and Congressman.

Concerned persons outside the US should also be sure to sign the petition and contact US legislators as the nature of the bill will also effect your copyrights.

You will no longer have the same copyright protections when you create your works. Without being listed in a database for which you will probably have to pay, your work may be considered “orphaned”, and the copyright infringer will be in the position of deciding the “fair rate” to pay you for use, assuming you ever find out your work was stolen. Oh, excuse me, “used”.

We’d hardly call ourselves experts in this area, but the bill as it stands does sound a little baby and bathwaterish. Read Colleen’s post for a more informed opinion.

This week, Rich Johnston broke the story that part of the reason for the Fox lawsuit against the Warner WATCHMEN may be a rights swap of sorts:

Sources tell me that Fox want the 1960s Batman TV series. Currently Fox own the TV footage, but Warner Bros own the characters and trademarks, via their ownership of DC Comics. The rights to a DVD release have been held up for a long time now, and this case looks like it may be the instrument to release them.

Oh, Fox will get a wodge of cash as well - many millions of dollars it seems. But it seems they also want the rights to release the Adam West-starring Batman on DVD, something long denied fans of the series. And Warners will get the “Watchmen” film, to release as planned.

This kind of rights swap is not unheard of in studio history. For instance, Universal once swapped the rights to Oswald the Rabbit for sportscaster Al Michaels. However, this deal is not so simple.
TVShowsOnDVD explains that the rights to those long lost Batman TV episodes are tied up in more rights than you could possibly imagine:

Why? Because, as CBR notes, Fox owns the footage. That footage is theirs to release in any manner they see fit…as long as they obey all contractual language involving licenses, royalties and residuals. For the big-screen film which was in theaters in the ’60s, shortly after the first season (and which recently came out on Blu-ray), there had been language in the contracts that covered release of the footage in places other than a theater (on an airplane flight, for example). Language which could cover the home video releases that came along ages later…something that wasn’t imagined in the late ’60s! But for the television episodes, there was no such language in the contracts about showing the footage anywhere else besides on television. So Fox can’t show it anywhere else, such as on a DVD, because they don’t have any rights to do so. The contracts did have language, though, to cover licensing small clips out to other productions (which is why some short footage can show up on DVDs like Holy Batmania!, but not entire episodes).

Also, because the show had so many cameos based on other pop culture sensations of the time, the rights are incredibly convoluted.

Wow, this just gets juicier and juicier.
(more…)

It’s not that often that a JURY protests a legal decision, but the jurors in the Michael George trial seem to want his head on a pike, as they protested with actual signs and everything.

It’s extremely rare for a judge to order a new trial after a jury has reached a verdict. The prosecution plans to file an appeal with the state Court of Appeals within the next two weeks.

“I think it’s a travesty,” said jury foreman Garry Kuzinskoski, a 45-year-old sales engineer.

“We went through every piece of evidence,” added juror Madette Bui, 39, a registered nurse. “Everybody agreed on first-degree murder. We knew exactly why we were deciding it.”

Once convicted of killing his wife in 1990, comics retailer and convention organizer Michael George is getting a second trial, after a judge overturned the jury’s June conviction on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct, among other reasons.

The first trial delivered mostly circumstantial evidence against George regarding the killing — his wife Barbara was shot execution-style in the backroom of the comic shop the Georges owned together.

The crux of the judge’s new opinion seems to be a recently found file about a criminal who was in the area at the time of Barbara George’s murder, the Detroit Free Press reports.

Documents recently discovered in a police file at the time of the murder refer to a man with a criminal past who knew the Georges and was in the area at the time of the murder. In June — a month before the documents were found — Michael George was sentenced to life in prison on first-degree murder in her slaying.

George’s attorney, former Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga, said the folder, which was found between two other folders in July and then given to prosecutors and defense attorneys, contains seven documents including a 1990 report by a Clinton Township officer about a call from Pat Flannery at Wayne County trustee services about pertinent information on the George case.

In the report, Flannery said he lived with Rita Prog, who was once married to Marshall David Prog, a drug addict who boasted that he had been involved in criminal activity in the past and had gotten away with a murder. A few days before Barbara George was killed, Marshall David Prog had returned to Michigan from Florida, was broke, and asked his ex-wife for money, which she declined to give. But a few days after the murder he returned to Florida with a large sum of money.

The case has already been the subject of a two-hour documentary on MSNBC and looks to have many more twists and turns yet to come.