Is Spiderman leaving Marvel? The legal battle that demands justice for the authors of sagas that generate millions

One of the biggest battles in the orbit of Marvel It is not for the fate of the galaxy, but for the possession of some of its most lucrative characters. And it is that the multimillion-dollar comic book company has sued, through its mother company Disney, the heirs of some of its most legendary comic creators such as Steve Ditko, Stan Lee and Gene Colan, to retain absolute control of characters like Iron Man, Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, Ant-Man, Hawkeye, Black Widow, and many more.

The lawsuit comes after the beneficiaries of the legacy of these creators began several processes of termination of copyright, a procedure determined by the Copyright Act of 1976 that allows the creators themselves or their heirs to terminate an agreement after a 56-year period.

In the most reported case of this saga, Patrick Ditko, brother of cartoonist Steve Ditko, presented this procedure last August against Marvel Entertainment in relation to the characters of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange, who appeared for the first time in the comics “Amazing Fantasy # 15 “(1962) and” Strange Tales Vol 1 # 110 “(1963). If the procedure is successful, it would enter into force in June 2023.

Patrick Ditko is represented by Marc Toberoff, a copyright attorney who is also conducting similar procedures for the family of other creators such as Don Heck, Stan Lee, Gene Colan, and Don Rico. Meanwhile, the House of the Mouse is represented by Daniel M. Petrocelli, another renowned specialist in the field of copyright. At the core of Marvel Entertainment’s argument is that these authors’ work was done through “contract work” and collaboratively in a style called the Marvel Method, for which they have no rights to these creations.

“These works were commissioned because they were created at the behest and expense of Marvel.“Said the attorney in response to the lawsuit of Stan Lee’s brother, Lawrence Lieber, another of Toberoff’s clients. “Any contributions that Lieber – Stan Lee’s real last name – made to the works were made at the behest of Marvel’s editorial staff, who had the right to exercise creative control over Lieber’s contributions..”

In communication with the New York Times, the lawyer reiterated this position, stating that “As these works were done by contract and therefore the property of Marvel, we are filing these lawsuits to confirm that the termination notices (copyright) are invalid and have no legal effect.”

Toberoff instead responded in a statement that his opponent’s argument is based on “an outdated and highly criticized interpretation of contract work under the Copyright Act of 1909 that needs to be rectified”.

“At the time these characters were created, the material was definitely not ‘work for hire’ under the law. These men were all ‘freelancers’ or independent contractors, working for a pittance.“, he pointed.

It should be noted that even if Disney lost the current lawsuit, it is most likely that the company would not lose ownership of the heroes in its entirety, although it would have to reach a new agreement with the plaintiffs’ heirs to continue its use. It is also noteworthy that this only involves the use of these characters in the United States, and the House of the Mouse would be free to continue using them in the international market as now.

Like Thor and Loki, or Spider-Man and the Green Goblin, both Marc Toberoff and Daniel M. Petrocelli are old rivals, albeit in the legal field. And this case is more than nostalgic for the lawyers, it may be very similar that he faced them between 2010 and 2014 for the rights of the characters of the cartoonist Jack Kirby, which included characters like the X-Men, the Fantastic Four, Thor and the Hulk.

Although two lower courts confirmed the position of Marvel – owned by Disney – in the case, in the end an attempt to bring the trial to the Supreme Court was stopped after Kirby’s heirs agreed to reach an agreement with the entertainment giant. . Thus, Toberoff himself made reference to this trial in the last statement.

“Back then, they asked me if I didn’t regret correcting this legal injustice towards creators – which was indeed true. I replied that there would be other similar cases“, he pointed.

It is not the only occasion in which Toberoff and Petrocelli were measured in the legal field, since both lawyers were involved in a public case by the heirs of Jerry Siegel against DC Comics and Warner Bros. for 50% of the rights about the character of Superman.

While Siegel’s family initially succeeded in getting his rights to the ‘man of steel’ recognized, eventually appeals from DC Comics succeeded in having his all-rights position confirmed.

More similar to the current lawsuit was one that writer Gary Friedrich, creator of Ghost Rider, brought against Marvel and other studios in 2007. Although the company initially won the copyright lawsuit under the same argument that Friederich worked for the studio under contract when he created the antihero, an appeal in 2013 allowed the trial to continue. However, before the legal battle was resumed, the author and the company reached an agreement, leaving no final answer to the dispute.

With these precedents, the forces seem to be against the Toberoff position, but if there is something that the comic strips have taught us, it is that the stories of the ‘underdogs’ are always exciting.

Although tangentially related, the topic also recalls the complaints of comic book creators about what they consider a meager payoff for creating or popularizing characters that have ended up generating billions for Marvel.

In one of the more recent cases, screenwriter Ed Brubaker complained in an interview with The Beat about the fact that he made more money from residual income from his brief cameo in “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” (2016) than from creating , along with Steve Epting, from the character of Winter Soldier (Winter Soldier). As you will remember, this version of Bucky Barnes has become an essential part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where he is played by Sebastian Stan, and more recently he was one of the protagonists of the series “Falcon and the Winter Soldier” for Disney +.

“All Steve Epting and I have received for creating the Winter Soldier and his story is a ‘thank you’ here or there, and over the years that has become harder to bear.“Brubaker said in a newsletter shortly before the series’ premiere.

Another who has spoken in favor of the creators is the screenwriter Ta-Nehisi Coates, who is remembered for writing a very well received saga of “Black Panther” between 2015 and 2021. “I wish Marvel found better ways to compensate the creators who made Black Panther ‘Black Panther‘”He said in an interview with Polygon. “I wish they found better ways to make up for the people who made Captain America ‘Captain America’’’

A note from The Guardian by Sam Thielman points out that both DC Comics and Marvel Studios have contracts whereby they share with character creators a small percentage of the income from their appearances in various media, be it movies, television series or toys. The idea of ​​these contracts is not only to pursue an idea of ​​what is fair, but also to encourage a good relationship between these companies and their talent. But the same coin, this means that they can change the stipulations whenever they want.

In one of the most remembered cases in recent years, Jim Starlin, creator of Thanos, initially complained about the fact that he received more money for the use of a minor character in “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice ”, than for the use of the crazy titan, Drax and Gamora in“ Guardians of the Galaxy ”. In the end he was able to renegotiate the amount paid for the multi-million dollar films “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Avengers: Endgame.”

“The cliché is that the wheels that make noise are getting oil”The author told The Hollywood Reporter. “The way these agreements are written, Disney can be more generous if they want to. It is written there that they can change the terms to make them better”.

This is not always an option for smaller creators, who are forced to accept the terms of the big companies to get their work done, forgotten cogs of the multi-million dollar media empires they helped create.