The Guardian reports that a man who founded the International Church of Jediism has accused a store of religious discrimination.

23-year-old Daniel Jones — or his Jedi name, Morda Hehol — says he was victimized by a Tesco store in Bangor. The crux of the argument? When he entered the store to get some food during his lunch break, store employees told him to take his hood off.

“They said: ‘Take it off’, and I said: ‘No, its part of my religion. It’s part of my religious right.’ I gave them a Jedi church business card,” Jones told the Guardian. “It states in our Jedi doctrination that I can wear headwear. It just covers the back of my head.” Tesco was a little bit more cheeky with its response, saying their main defense is that Luke Skywalker, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Yoda were all seen without their hoods.

I’ll be honest, I’m kind of torn by this. On the one hand, it’s pretty easy to dismiss the guy as a weirdo for establishing a religion around George Lucas’ film trilogies, but at the same time, if you took out the word “Jedi” there would be some major implications here. What if they told a Jew they couldn’t wear a kippah? If they told a Muslim they would have to remove their hijab? What do you think?

[via Alex Irvine]

Just when you thought the comicsphere could rest easy after the past few weeks — the heirs of Jack “King” Kirby have something to say.

The heirs of one of the architects of the House of Ideas have sent 45 notices of copyright termination to Marvel, Disney, Paramount, Sony, Fox, and Universal, the New York Times has reported.

There’s no word about what characters are involved with this — or if the rights being discussed are for comics, film, television, licensing, or all of the above — but considering Kirby has helped create characters ranging from the (original) X-Men to the Fantastic Four, it could be big. Any change-up would occur around 2014, which would be years after Paramount’s Avengers films, Sony’s Spider-Man 4, or Fox’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine sequel would hit theatres.

On the legal side of things, this is more or less bleeding edge copyright and intellectual property war being waged here. DC has seen similar issues with the Siegel estate’s legal dealings regarding the Superman franchise — and in this case, both the Siegels and the Kirbys have the same lawyer, Marc Toberoff. The phrase “work for hire” will almost certainly come into play here, as the creation of these characters in the early 1960s didn’t typically come with the most ironclad of creator contracts.

But what about that Disney deal? Will this spoil that? Not according to Disney reps, who told the NY Times, “the notices involved are an attempt to terminate rights seven to 10 years from now, and involve claims that were fully considered in the acquisition.” Stay tuned to Blog@ and the mothership for more info…

In a surprising move just days before the San Diego Comic Con, David Elliot, the former editor in chief of Radical Comics, has sued parent company Blatant Entertainment.

The co-founder of the Radical Comics, Elliot said that he was terminated in April, and alleges he was not given his full salary from Blatant.

Elliot also claims that he was not credited some Radical Comics finds such as Aladdin, City of Dust, Caliber, and Hercules; that he was not compensated for acquiring Hotwire, Cholly & Flytrap, and Lords of Misture; and that other projects that he owns part of the copyrights have been exploited by the company without his consent. You can read the complaint in full here.

Another interesting quote, from THREsq.com: “Blatant’s management failed to have any of its employees sign work-for-hire agreements and/or assignments of copyrights, thereby clouding title to all of Blatant’s projects, and making it impossible for Blatant to provide proper chain of title documents and guarantees to investors, production companies, studios, and insurers, to the detriment of its shareholders.” If this is true, this a whole new can of worms for the comics-to-film venture company.

Radical Comics, which hit the scenes last year, has teamed up with figures ranging from Jim Steranko to Steve Niles to Nick Simmons.

If you visit Wizard’s Storefront Feedback at Amazon.com, it appears something bad has happened of late. The 90 day feedback shows 23% negative, but the 30 day feedback shows 53%. Exploring the full feedback, 35 out of the 50 most recent are 1 star out of 5. These have some interesting comments attached to them:

“I ordered a $200+ robot dog and they sent me plastic superman figurine!??!!?? I sent the seller 2 e-mails and received NO response and it’s been over 2 weeks! What a bunch of crooks! AVOID AT ALL COST!! Amazon should really consider banning this merchant from the marketplace!”

“they send the wrong toy plus it was a cheaper version,and charge me original price they never answer my emails ,i had to contact amazon directly,but amazon saved the day, till this day i havent heard from wizard entertainment”

“The seller falsely advertised the LEGO Star Wars Clone Scout Walker. When contacted a couple days later a crushed box with a piece of junk metal arrived. I contacted the seller several times & got no response. Even after filing a claim with Amazon the seller still refused to acknowledge the defect/cheating they performed.”

Most other comments are very similar. There are several reports of people receiving a Superman action figure in lieu of their items, several reports of multiple attempts to contact Wizard via email and phone being ignored, or being sent damaged or overpriced product, complete with the lower pricetag on the box. I contacted Wizard to ask about what seems to be a major case of mail fraud, and received this official response from April Wiggins:

“This is an issue that we are aware of and are addressing. During a recent
inventory move we incurred some damage to parts of our inventory. Since many
of our customers are collectors, these items are not suitable. When this
occurs, we send people a free gift (with shipping at our own expense) to
compensate them for their inconvenience. They also receive a full refund on
their order.

Although we send a note attached, it is confusing to some. We apologize for
any confusion and we continue to clear up any misunderstandings. To date,
anyone who was inconvenienced received a full refund and a free action
figure.”

Now, there are zero out of those 35 cases where the same poster has posted again to say anything like, “I got my refund” or “I re-read the paper that came with the Superman figure and realized they sent it as an apology,” so it still seems like something else might be going on. According to an anonymous source within Wizard, the customer service phone number no longer “goes to anything” and the non-replies to the email address are on purpose.

In addition, looking at Wizard’s Forums, the customer service problems appear to have been harrowing them for a lot longer than the last 30 days. A post dated August 8, 2006 is the first to note the non-answering of email and the phone number that’s very difficult to find. The frequency of these style of posts kicked up in March of 2009, with six and a half pages of comments similar to the Amazon feedback. Most of these include statements like, “I’ve been waiting 3 weeks,” “My order shipped with several missing items,” and “I’ve emailed several times with no reply.” These customers are seeing charges come up on their credit cards days or weeks before anything is shipped. They contradict Wiggins’s official statement, saying that after several months they had to dispute the charges with their credit cards in order to get their money back.

A moderator, “Jerry Whitworth,” has gone on this thread repeatedly telling people, “Don’t order from a company you have problems with,” as did moderator “jaydee74.”

One poster, Chris Underwood, even pasted in his entire customer service email experience. He received order confirmation April 30, 2009. He then sent emails that weren’t responded to on May 1, May 6, May 8, and May 9, all with no response.

With all this evidence, it seems something more than a note that is “confusing to some” is the problem. Wizard’s official statement says they’ve been prompt with refunds, but the customers tell a different story. While one has recently noted a refund, it was a full month after order placement (and credit card charge), and still with no communication.

This may be indicative of the larger problem Wizard has been facing over the last year or so. With magazine closings, location closings, and layoffs, things don’t look to be getting better. While Gareb Shamus purchased the Big Apple Con and revived the Chicago Comic-Con name, it is interesting to note that both DC Comics and Marvel Comics are conspicuously absent from the list of exhibitors for this year’s Chicago show, which is only about two months away. Image, Dark Horse, and IDW are likewise missing.

President Obama has appointed Charles Rivkin–former Jim Henson Company CEO and current producer of Yo Gabba Gabba!–to serve as U.S. Ambassador to France.

Nikki Finke provides the political backstory. I really don’t have any additional observations, except occasionally it’s a relief to note law-related news that doesn’t involve damages, injunctions or plea bargains.

Now that Heath Ledger’s posthumous award has shown once and for all that superhero movies are as worthy as any other films of the best talent out there, it seems like an even better time to discuss casting for Bat-sequels.

MTV Splash Page has an interview with Greg Rucka saying he’d love to see Catwoman in the next Nolan Bat-movie, and I couldn’t agree more. As Rucka said, with the death of Rachel Dawes, the time is ripe to introduce a new love interest, and the traumatized Bruce Wayne we saw at the end of The Dark Knight would be ripe for an unhealthy, dark, messy relationship with a Nolanized Selina Kyle.

Nothing campy about Catwoman in Nolan’s Gotham City. She’d have to be sexy, of course, but also capable of being conflicted, complicated–as much so as Bruce/Batman himself. I love the idea floated of Rachel Weisz (also, the picture!). She did the genre in Constantine (eminently watchable if you allow yourself to forget that Keanu Reeves is supposed to be playing, well, John Constantine), and she’s pretty but not in a conventional way (not unlike Maggie Gyllenhaal, who fit so well into the Dark Knight cast).

At a party at NYCC, I got into a discussion with the lovely Molly Crabapple about what we’d like to see in another Batman film, and we both agreed that it was time to up the female presence. To make the film pass the Bechdel test, what if Nolan added Harley Quinn? The Joker’s gone–they’re obviously not going to replace Heath Ledger this soon. So what about a psychotic Harley out for revenge? Instead of the girlfriend in the background, she’s in the foreground, out for blood.

I love the Joker archetype and I would love to see a woman playing that type of character. Molly and I quickly tossed out a few rules for Harley: we want her to not be uber-pretty, and even better if she’s a bit older. We want her dangerous, like the Joker but both more seductive and more unhinged, Angelina Jolie in Girl, Interrupted ramped up to 11. But who could play the role? Angelina, sure, but she’d have the pretty-pretty thing going.

We didn’t reach any conclusions that night, but it hit me the next day:

Courtney Love.

Discuss.

The judge in the ongoing Superman lawsuit has postponed the upcoming scheduled trials due to “health issues related to one of [the Siegel family's] main expert witnesses.” The trial on the alter ego issue is now set for April 21, 2009; the trial regarding apportionment of profits is set to follow on June 9th.

What better way to end the week than with the official Watchmen settlement documents submitted to the court this morning?

If you read the proposed order of dismissal, you might noticed that the parties are requesting for the case to be dismissed “with prejudice.” That does not mean, as some mistakenly believe, that the court is criticizing the plaintiff for bringing the case. Rather, it’s a legal term of art indicating that the plaintiff is barred from bringing a lawsuit on the same claim–in short, the parties have agreed that this case is over, once and for all.

Of course, there might be a dispute over whether the terms of the settlement are being met. Chances are, if the settlement is true to form, the parties have agreed to have any such dispute resolved through mediation.

The proposed dismissal order needs the judge’s signature, but today’s lighthearted hearing indicates that that is not likely to be a problem.

Though the judge is already anticipating a possible sequel:

“It may be over between the two of you,” said [Judge] Feess, “but who knows what else will show up one day?”

Fox and Warner Bros. have just released official confirmation that they have settled the Watchmen dispute. The following is the companies’ reported joint 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.

As Nikki Finke reports, the price that Warner Bros. is said to have agreed to pay is substantial: 8.5% of the gross, a percentage of “everything going forward, including a sequel or spinoff,” as well as a substantial cash payment for Fox’s development costs and attorney fees. Industry watchers may want to keep an eye on TimeWarner’s SEC filings for more information–the loss of a substantial amount of Watchmen’s anticipated profits arguably qualifies as a material fact that the company must disclose to its shareholders.

That the settlement came so quickly after the judge’s summary judgment ruling for Fox should come as no surprise. As I noted earlier, Fox had nothing to lose going forward, while WB could lose everything–and given the recent track record, Warner Bros.’ executives might not exactly be comfortable relying on their lawyers’ assurances of victory. What’s more, the injunction against the manufacturers of Bratz provided a powerful reminder that federal judges in that district could view (alleged) infringement of IP rights as harm substantive enough to warrant shutting down distribution. You don’t have to be a game theorist to see where the incentives lay.

News reports note that Warner Bros. is going to seek reimbursement from film producer Larry Gordon, from whom the rights to the film had ostensibly been purchased. The basis for such a claim would be the indemnification provision referred to in these court filings–in short, an agreement to indemnify is a contractual promise to compensate someone for loss or other harm.

The extent to which Gordon may be obligated to pay for Warner Bros.’ loss depends on a few key circumstances. Read these documents carefully and you’ll note that in the course of its dispute with Warner Bros., Fox argued that Warner Bros. had “actual knowledge” of Fox’s rights when it entered into the indemnification agreement with Gordon. If that’s indeed the case, a court might rule that Gordon does not have to pay, on the grounds that a party should not be allowed to insure itself against its own reckless or willful misconduct. Even if a court does determine that Gordon must indemnify Warner Bros. for its loss, he himself might have insurance or grounds to sue his own lawyers for malpractice.

However, for most fans of the graphic novel, Gordon’s fate is probably not the immediate concern. What matters most: provided the judge approves the proposed settlement, the Watchmen film will indeed be released on March 6.

The Watchmen case is not the only comics-related lawsuit that has been heating up. Lawyers on both sides of the Siegel case have also been filing a number of documents, although without a settlement in sight.

The primary focus of attention for the past few weeks has been the relationship between DC and Warner Bros. In a nutshell, the Siegels allege that the various deals between DC and Warner Bros. do not represent fair market value. Rather, the Siegels claim, because of the close corporate relationship between the two companies DC received substantially less than an unrelated company would have paid–which could affect the amount the Siegels might receive from the apportionment of profits derived from their copyright interest in Superman.

We’ll be covering the specifics in more detail as the case unfolds. For now, for those of who don’t want to wade through several thousand pages of depositions and corporate documents, here’s one interesting bit of history entered into evidence as part of the dispute: unproduced scripts written over the course of developing the latest Superman movie.

Fox and Warner Bros. have asked for a hearing later today to report on a final settlement or to discuss how to proceed in the hearing scheduled for January 20. The filing, available on FilmEsq.com, notes that the studios “are continuing to address a few remaining settlement issues.” It also confirms that settlement negotiations began in late December, a few days after the judge’s decisive December 24 ruling in favor of Fox.

The New York Times’ Michael Cieply reads the body language at last night’s awards ceremony:

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. A public display of affection between studio chiefs, along with those pricey “Watchmen” ads on the National Football League playoff games this weekend, would add up to a message as big as the Hollywood sign: The talks between hitherto warring Fox and Warner over a settlement of Fox’s lawsuit over rights to “Watchmen” must be on track.

The final fate of the Watchmen movie could be determined next week. Later today–January 7th–Fox and Warner Bros. are scheduled to meet with the judge to discuss the next steps in the case.

As FilmEsq explains in more detail, the parties have agreed that the next proceeding should “be limited to the question of whether Fox is entitled to a permanent injunction” on the film’s distribution. If Fox were to prevail, the film would likely not be released without a settlement or action on appeal. The current date for the next hearing is set for January 20th, but Warner Bros., citing the urgency of resolving the matter, has asked for it to be moved up to next Monday, January 12th.

The question of whether the judge should grant the injunction involves some rather technical points of law. One key factor in the movie’s fate will be the judge’s perception of relative hardship. For example, the judge in the Bratz case recently decided that the harm to the manufacturer was severe enough to warrant modifying the court’s previous order to stop production and sale of the dolls.

For anyone who wants to read both sides’ arguments and their joint stipulation about the scope of future proceedings, here are some of the most relevant documents.

Fans anxious to know whether Watchmen will be released in March as scheduled will have to wait a few weeks. The New York Times is reporting that the judge in the Watchmen case has decided to refrain from ruling on the injunction sought by Fox until after a hearing set for January 20, 2009.

For anyone who wants more details on the judge’s 12/24 ruling, I’ve uploaded a set of documents that includes not just the Christmas Eve order, but both parties’ motions for summary judgment as well as fascinating material filed by Fox just yesterday.

These three rulings 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 Bros. initially relied on an inaccurate chain of title provided by Paramount. Once Warner Bros. 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.

Fox’s claim that Warner Bros. has an established “studio practice” of bad faith in clearing title is central to its argument that the court should enjoin Warner Bros. from releasing the film.

Besides these documents, I also recommend checking out Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily and Rodney Perkins’ Film Esq., which provide detailed analysis of the latest developments.

A quick editorial addendum to Jeff’s post: On Monday, Warner Bros. issued a statement about the ruling, saying: “We respectfully but vigorously disagree with the court’s ruling and are exploring all of our appellate options,” the studio said. “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.”

Fox responded with: “We are gratified by the recognition of our rights in the judge’s order, which speaks for itself.”

Apparently a judge has ruled that 20th Century Fox does own a share in Watchmen.

The Associated Press reported:

A U.S. federal judge has ruled that 20th Century Fox owns a copyright interest in “Watchmen,” potentially jeopardizing the superhero movie’s March release.

U.S. District Judge Gary Feess of Los Angeles disclosed the decision in a written order Wednesday, The New York Times and Variety reported.

I’d be willing to be that Fox will settle for allowing the release and wanting a chunk of cash that the movie’s bound to make. They’d be pretty stupid not to. But I’m neither a copyright lawyer nor a Fox exec, so who knows.

Sorry to ruin anyone’s fun.
(h/t a friend)

Comic book depictions of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct have once again become a major legal issue.

Just a few years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that “extended the prohibition against child pornography to images that . . . were produced without using any real children.” However, last week, in U.S. v. Whorley, a federal appeals court upheld a 20-year prison term for a man convicted of receiving “Japanese anime-style cartoons of children engaged in explicit sexual conduct with adults.” This follows a lower court case–U.S. v. Handley–in which a judge ruled against a manga collector who argued that indicting him for possession of child porn is unconstitutional. An additional sign of the importance of this issue is that it is not limited to the United States–an Australian court upheld a man’s conviction for possessing sexually explicit Simpsons cartoons.

The flurry of cases has sparked a considerable amount of discussion both online and off. Back in October, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund announced that it had become a special consultant to the defense of Christopher Handley, the manga collector facing trial for receiving and possessing manga alleged to be child pornography. Neil Gaiman garnered considerable attention for his eloquent post supporting the CBLDF’s decision; citing the First Amendment and the problematic nature of the law as “big blunt instrument,” Gaiman argued the defending the freedom to express what you find reprehensible is a necessary part of defending speech that you like. Others, most notably comics writer Valerie d’Orazio, raised serious questions about whether they could support the CBLDF when it is “fighting for the right of a publisher to print images of little children having sex.”

Is it constitutional to send someone to jail for possessing comics with sexually explicit images of kids? And how should the comics community respond? My thoughts below, after the jump.

(more…)

Just in time for Christmas, a federal judge has ordered MGA Entertainment to stop production and sales of Bratz. It’s a major victory for Mattel and Barbie–a jury had found in favor of Mattel’s claim of copyright infringement, but it was not clear whether this finding applied only to the original Bratz dolls or to the entire line.

This case is relevant to the comics world for several reasons, even if you don’t count Barbie’s multiple marriages to GI Joe and Mego Batman.

At the very least, the Bratz ruling illustrates what’s at risk for a company that builds its brand on a derivative work from someone else’s copyrighted images. Consider the recent discovery that an early Emily the Strange drawing was a clear copy of a character from a children’s book, from the character’s appearance to her cats to the identifying description as “strange.” This could arguably be the smoking gun in a copyright infringement lawsuit–while subsequent images may not have copied the book in such a blatant way, core similarities still remain.

However, there’s an even more direct connection. The judge in Bratz case, the Hon. Stephen G. Larson, is also presiding over the Siegel heirs’ Superman and Superboy lawsuits. Judge Larson’s reasoning in the Bratz ruling may provide clues as to how he will see the relationship between the Superman material in Action Comics #1 and subsequent works. Moreover, the Bratz case also involved the use of Mattel’s copyrighted material in the Bratz trademarks. Although the specific legal issues aren’t exactly the same, it’s possible to infer from the judge’s reasoning that he might be favorably inclined toward the Siegels’ argument that their copyright interest gives them a share of the trademarked Superman “S” symbol.

That said, the Bratz ruling also highlights what I’ve previously referred to as the Achilles’ heel of the March 2008 ruling that awarded the Siegels half of the copyright in the Superman material in Action #1–namely, the similarity between Action #1 and the cover images that appeared in promotional house ads. Due to a technicality, the Siegels’ claim did not extend back to these house ads, but Judge Larson determined the only thing that these ads gave DC was ownership of “the image of a person with extraordinary strength who wears a black and white leotard and cape.” Nonetheless, it’s conceivable–though by no means certain–that a panel of judges hearing the case on appeal might find the similarity to be more substantial.

Of course, this is all speculative reading of judicial tea-leaves–the Superman case and Emily the Strange have their own distinct facts and legal issues. The one thing that is certain: if the MGA injunction is not struck down on appeal or settled out, Bratz must be destroyed.

Neil Gaiman recently wrote on his blog about the Christopher Handley Comic Book Legal Defense Fund case. If you haven’t followed the sordid circumstances, Christopher Hadley bought a series of lolicon (which I’ve recently gathered is the manga sub-classification dealing with sexually charged depictions of Lolita/under-age persons) manga volumes from Japan. A nosey postal inspector decided to investigate, found material of “questionable” content, and alerted the police, who then followed Mr. Handley home and arrested him. The CBLDF’s statement on the case is here.

On his blog, Mr. Gaiman addressed a reader’s concern that supporting the CBLDF in this matter is tantamount to supporting child pornography.

Rest easy, Dear Reader. Backing the CBLDF in this circumstance is the right thing to do. Look, I won’t lie, I’m a CBLDF backer; if I lived some high-stepping, lavish lifestyle, I’d probably give them a lot more money than I do ($100 annual donation, plus various small fundraiser purchases throughout the year), but even if I wasn’t on their side usually, this case is patently ridiculous.

Sometimes you can’t get between a fanboy and his movies.

In Salt Lake City, a father left his two-year-old strapped in the car while he went to go see “The Dark Knight” this past summer entered a guilty plea this past Wednesday.

Why so serious? Because while suspect David James Farnham claims that his son was asleep when he left him to go see the movie; when bystanders discovered the baby an hour later, the inside of the car was 87 degrees. The child was allegedly awake and crying at this point.

Farnham was being charged with reckless endangerment, and the baby is currently with his mother. The kicker is that the police interrupted the screening to arrest him. Party foul!

In all seriousness, this is very un-heroic behavior. We all know Batman’s a much better parent than that–

…Sigh, I give up.

[Via Salt Lake Tribune.]

When state Rep. Jason Mumpower neglected to report his comics collection to the Tennessee Ethics Commission, somebody dropped a dime. Or, rather, an email.

Mumpower needn’t worry, though: His 17,000 comics apparently don’t qualify as a financial investment that must be disclosed to the commission.

“My common sense tells me that isn’t something that should be reported,” Bruce Androphy, the commission’s executive director, tells the Knoxville News-Sentinel.

Mumpower, the 35-year-old House Republican Leader, says he’s been collecting comics since he was 12, and has no idea of their value.

He notes that President-Elect Barack Obama also is a comics fan. (He reportedly likes Conan and Spider-Man.)

“There are two things Barack Obama and I have in common: We both collect comic books, and we both have big ears,” Mumpower told the newspaper.