SIMON VS. MARVEL DECISION REVERSED [Archive]

View Full Version : SIMON VS. MARVEL DECISION REVERSED

MattBrady

11-13-2002, 12:44 PM

<img src="http://classic.newsarama.com/Marvel/Cap1.jpg" width="175" height="193" border="0" align="right">In a decision handed down on November 7th, the US 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed the ruling in the case between Captain America creator Joe Simon and Marvel Comics. Originally, the lower court had found in favor with Marvel, effectively ending Simon’s chances of terminating the transfer of copyright he made shortly after he created Captain America, which granted all the rights to the character to Marvel.

Following in the footsteps of the widow of Jerry Siegel, Simon filed papers with the US Copyright office that would have terminated the transfer of copyright he made to Marvel Comics in 1940. Simon filed the paperwork in late 1999, and, if his efforts had succeeded initially, the copyright would have been returned to him on December 7th, 2001.

The matter went to court, and Marvel prevailed, and in March of this year, the court <a href="http://www6.law.com/lawcom/displayid.cfm?statename=NY&docnum=114652&table=case+digest&flag=full" target="_blank"> found</a> in favor of the publisher, rather than Simon. This decision reverses the March verdict.

The Decision from the appellate court can be found <a href="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:81/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTcyMjFfb3BuLnBkZg== /02-7221_opn.pdf" target="_blank"> here</a> – for analysis and commentary, Newsarama asked Mike Lovitz of Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP, an attorney very familiar with creator’s rights as well as the comic book industry to explain the ruling in his best non-legalese.

Without further ado, then, here’s Mike, explaining the decision point by point…

BACKGROUND – the prior decision

Simon created Cap and shopped it, then worked on the comic. Marvel registered the copyright in the first ten issues, including the character. In 1966 and in 1967, Simon sued (first state court, then federal court) alleging Cap was his creation, Marvel's use infringed his rights, and he was further entitled to the renewal on the copyright registration. These cases were settled after 2 years of litigation, and Simon signed a settlement agreement which included the following statement: "Simon acknowledges and agrees that all his work on the Materials, and all his work which created or related to the Rights, was done as an employee for hire of the Goodmans [Martin Goodman, Publisher of Marvel]."

In the lower court decision, Marvel moved for Summary Judgment, claiming there were no genuine issues of facts in dispute, and, based on those undisputed facts, the law mandated finding in Marvel's favor on the complaint.

Marvel raised three reasons why they should prevail: (1) The basis for this claim was the same as had been raised and decided during the 1960s litigation against Marvel, and therefore could not be relitgated 30+ years later (res judicata); (2) Simon waited too long and is equitably estopped from relitigating the claim of ownership, previously resolved in the settlement agreement; and (3) since Simon admitted the works were "work made for hire", he is not entitled to the termination provision of the Copyright statute.

(FYI - Res Judicata operates to prevent parties from litigating any matter that was or could have been decided in a previous suit.)

The District Court agreed with Simon on point (2), finding Simon timely filed the notices of termination, and so was not estopped from making such filing. The Court then held in Marvel's favor on the issue of res judicata (point 1) with respect only to the counterclaim by Simon seeking a declaration that he is the author of the Captain America works, but not to any other claims.

On point (3), the Court found in Marvel's favor, specifically finding that because the settlement agreement clearly stated that the Works, including the Captain America character, were "works made for hire", which is specifically carved out of the right of termination in the statute.
APPEAL (current decision by Second Circuit)

The standard of review by an appeal court is de novo, meaning they start from scratch.

1) Res Judicata:

The Second Circuit reasoned that the termination right, under which Simon sought to reclaim the rights in Captain America, are newly added since the 1960s law suits, and therefore did not exist when those prior suits were settled. As a result, res judicata does not bar Simon from asserting the validity of the Termination Notices.

2) Collateral Estoppel

Collateral Estoppel applies when the same issue was (or should have been) raised in a prior proceeding, the party had the opportunity to litigate the issue, and the resolution of the issue was necessary to support the final judgment.

In this case, the prior litigations in the 60s ended in a stipulation of settlement, and as a result, there were no specific findings of fact or law. Thus, there could be no collateral estoppel no the issue of authorship underlying the claim in the suit.

3) Application of Section 304 of the Copyright Act

The Second Circuit discussed the meaning and intent behind this section of the Copyright Act, whereby authors have the right to terminate grants and licenses "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary".

The issue on which the Court focused was whether the Settlement Agreement, which declared the Works to be "works made for hire", constituted an "agreement to the contrary", a question which the statute did not address clearly. The Court therefore reviewed the legislative history of the statute to determine the intent and purpose behind the termination provision.

The Supreme Court previously discussed the intent and purpose of this section:

The principal purpose of the amendments in § 304 was to provide added benefits to authors. The . . . concept of a termination right itself, w[as] obviously intended to make the rewards for the creativity of authors more substantial. More particularly, the termination right was expressly intended to relieve authors of the consequences of ill- advised and unremunerative grants that had been made before the author had a fair opportunity to appreciate the true value of his work product. That general purpose is plainly defined in the legislative history and, indeed, is fairly inferable from the text of § 304 itself.

The Court further found that this provision "reflects Congress's intent to protect authors from unequal bargaining positions", and "to prevent authors from waiving their termination right by contract." Thus, the Court reasoned, an agreement, such as the one between Simon and Marvel, which stipulates the work was created as a work made for hire, is a type of "agreement to the contrary" authors are permitted to challenge and disavow under the statute.

Otherwise, the Court reasoned, the purpose and intent of Section 304(c) would be thwarted, and companies could eliminate the termination right because "litigation-savvy publishers would be able to utilize their superior bargaining position to compel authors to agree that a work was created for hire in order to get their works published." The focus in determining authorship, stated the Court, is on the actual relationship between the parties, rather than the language of their agreements.

Therefore, Simon was found not to be bound by the statement in the Settlement Agreement. Because Simon provided evidence that he did not create the work as an employee for hire, while Marvel asserts otherwise, there is a triable issue of fact which must be decided by a jury, i.e., whether Simon was the author of the Works and therefore entitled to exercise the termination right under Section 304.

4) Equitable Estoppel

The Second Circuit found Simon was not barred by equitable estoppel from asserting that he was the author. Their reasoning:

- First, the Court found Section 304(c) requires a lengthy period before the rights of termination may be raised, and to allow equitable estoppel under such circumstances undermines the purpose of the statute.

- Second, the termination right didn't exist until almost 10 years after the settlement agreement was signed, and so it could not have been raised at the time of settlement.

- Third, the Court found that Marvel could not establish detriment for equitable estoppel purposes because "Marvel has received the full economic benefit of the full twenty-eight year renewal term", and "can continue to exploit every Captain America property created prior to the effective date of termination."

CONCLUSION
Summary judgment is therefore reversed, and the case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings.

In effect, the decision means that Simon can proceed with his battle to win back the copyright to Captain America.

shakey

11-13-2002, 01:07 PM

Not to be morbid , but here's hoping Simon can win and be around to enjoy the victory. The copywright laws are ridiculous in this country when creators must sue corporations for their life's work.

riotgear

11-13-2002, 01:22 PM

So does this mean in six months will be reading about the mysterious new Avenger, Cap-X?

John Osen

11-13-2002, 01:34 PM

I hope not. I find all the other Marvel and DC characters more interesting than the X characters. Let the flaming begin! :D

daske

11-13-2002, 01:47 PM

Boy, the past couple days have been litigation central for this site! Seeing as how it seems en vogue to sue Marvel, I'm thinking of starting a class action suit for emotional damage caused by mid-90 multi-title crossovers and foil covers.

Just an idea. . .

Cliffy

11-13-2002, 01:47 PM

Interesting analysis -- I'm not finsihed reading it yet -- but one correction; in the lede you write that the reversal came from the 2d District Court of Appeals; it's actually the 2d Circuit. (Formally, The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) This is not a mere cosmetic distinction, as district courts are trial courts and federal appellate courts are (usually) circuit courts.

--Cliffy

MattBrady

11-13-2002, 01:49 PM

augh - you're right.

MattB

Cliffy

11-13-2002, 02:28 PM

I didn't spend four years in law school for nuthin'!

--Cliffy

Hollands

11-13-2002, 02:39 PM

Finally, the reason for "The Truth" mini-series comes to light.

Tue Sorensen

11-13-2002, 02:46 PM

[quote]Originally posted by riotgear:
So does this mean in six months will be reading about the mysterious new Avenger, Cap-X?<hr></blockquote>They can just call him The Captain again. No biggie.

Pariah

11-13-2002, 03:03 PM

How bout "Captain I'll wage war against 3rd world nations that just 12 months ago I gave billions of dollars to their military in the attempts to control them for various colonial purposes"?

Hmmm, Maybe Captain USA would sound better...

jdkern

11-13-2002, 03:04 PM

I'm curious what Joe Simon hopes to accomplish with this lawsuit. What happens to the character if he wins? There are no longer Captain America comics on the shelf? All that does is punish the characters fans.

Josh

manosx

11-13-2002, 03:08 PM

From shakey [quote] <hr></blockquote>The copywright laws are ridiculous in this country when creators must sue corporations for their life's work.

Life's work??? Though I agree that the copyright laws need updating, I don't know if Cap would be Joe Simon's life's work. Cap has been taken much farther than Mr. Simon would have ever taken him. When was the last time he even did a Cap story? Maybe I'm wrong, tho.

Cliffy

11-13-2002, 03:55 PM

[quote]Originally posted by jdkern:
What happens to the character if he wins? There are no longer Captain America comics on the shelf? All that does is punish the characters fans.<hr></blockquote>

No, that's not all it does. If Simon has control over Cap, then he can publish Cap's adventures himself or license them to another publisher. But more likely, he can relicense (or sell) the character to Marvel so Cap can continue in the Marvel U. but Simon gets paid for it.

--Cliffy

John Osen

11-13-2002, 03:59 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Pariah:
How bout "Captain I'll wage war against 3rd world nations that just 12 months ago I gave billions of dollars to their military in the attempts to control them for various colonial purposes"?

Hmmm, Maybe Captain USA would sound better...<hr></blockquote>

How bout US Agent? ;)

saiyanspider

11-13-2002, 04:01 PM

how messed up would it be if he sold cap to dc? man that would be weird.

John Osen

11-13-2002, 04:08 PM

[quote]Originally posted by saiyanspider:
how messed up would it be if he sold cap to dc? man that would be weird.<hr></blockquote>

I think it would be really cool. We could finally settle the "Batman vs. Cap in hand to hand combat debate". My opinion is if you take away the devices, Batman's greater martial arts training (and possibly slightly dirtier fighting techniques) would barely edge out Cap's almost superhuman physical attributes. :D

RDFozz

11-13-2002, 04:14 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Cliffy:
No, that's not all it does. If Simon has control over Cap, then he can publish Cap's adventures himself or license them to another publisher. But more likely, he can relicense (or sell) the character to Marvel so Cap can continue in the Marvel U. but Simon gets paid for it.<hr></blockquote>

Stretching my Powers of Recollection back to the original discussions of both this effort and the effort by Siegel or Shuster's family to regain the copyright on early Superman work, the copyright on the issues in question (I believe CAPTAIN AMERICA 1-10 from the 1940's were mentioned?) reverts to the author(s) of the work.

Captain America would still remain a registered trademark of Marvel. All the rest of the Cap work remains in Marvel's hands. And, I don't necessarily think this even prevents Marvel from publishing comics about Captain America.

What I recall this would do is let Simon license out the rights to develop stuff based on the items he would then own the copyrights to, namely, CAPTAIN AMERICA (1940's) 1-10. And the issue of what to call the stuff developed would be Simon's problem.

I am not a lawyer, and Cliffy may be (he's at least been to law school), so keep that in mind. This is just a recap of what had been said a few years back, when this case and the Superman case came up.

Speaking of which, unlike this case, nothing public seems to come of the Superman case. Last time the subject arose, speculation was that DC and the family had reached a settlement of some sort.

Hmmm, not Marvel's week for litigation. And in that case, how's about some movement on the late books class-action suit?

AvenGerbils Assemble

11-13-2002, 04:17 PM

[quote]Originally posted by saiyanspider:
how messed up would it be if he sold cap to dc? man that would be weird.<hr></blockquote>

That would be cool! Say he was blown up by the Red Skull! The explosion sends him to the another universe where he is rescued from an icy coffin by Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Superman and Batman (riding in the JLA submarine)!

Cliffy

11-13-2002, 04:29 PM

[quote]Originally posted by RDFozz:
Captain America would still remain a registered trademark of Marvel. All the rest of the Cap work remains in Marvel's hands. And, I don't necessarily think this even prevents Marvel from publishing comics about Captain America.<hr></blockquote>

I am alawyer, but I don't know anything, really, about the interaction between copyright and trademark. From the analysis at the head of this thread, it seems Marvel would still have copyright in the Cap material from before the termination notice, so they could at least reprint that. If Simon held the copyright, though, Marvel could not publish new Cap material, as anything with Cap in it is a derivative work of his original appearances, and the copyright holder has the exclusive right to create or license derivative works. I'm curious as to the trademark stuff myself, but my understanding is that a trademark cannot survive if based on an illegal misappropriation of rights, which this would be were Simon to prevail. However, the trademark confusion is another reason why it's more likely that, were Simon to win, his probable course would be to license or sell his rights back to Marvel. That way, no one has to litigate the trademark issues at all.

--Cliffy

Taylor Porter

11-13-2002, 04:36 PM

[quote]Originally posted by saiyanspider:
how messed up would it be if he sold cap to dc? man that would be weird.<hr></blockquote>

I think Cap would fit better in the DC Universe than he does in Marvel's. Most of DC's heroes are these flawless, god-like, worshipful heroes. Most of Marvel's are flawed, socially outcast, freakish people. That's what has always bugged me about the Avengers, it seemed like Marvel trying to do the DC style of The World's Greatest Heroes or whatever, when I don't think that's what their strength is. I never saw how Cap fit in with great Marvel characters like Namor, the Hulk, Daredevil, the X-Men, etc.

Jeremy Williams

11-13-2002, 05:25 PM

If it prevents Cap from being published the way it is, or hurt the company financialy, i will hunt the Simons to the end of the Earth. :p

hiphophead

11-13-2002, 05:31 PM

First free agency hits baseball, basketball, hockey, football and now comic books???

We are becoming experts on the legal matters of ownership, contractual obligation and the like.

To think I read comics to escape reality.

John Osen

11-13-2002, 05:35 PM

[quote]Originally posted by AvenGerbils Assemble:


That would be cool! Say he was blown up by the Red Skull! The explosion sends him to the another universe where he is rescued from an icy coffin by Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Superman and Batman (riding in the JLA submarine)!<hr></blockquote>

Aquaman wouldn't need the sub. He could rescue Cap on his own, and they could get someone like Firestorm to form the new Invaders! :D

howler

11-13-2002, 08:03 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Hollands:
Finally, the reason for "The Truth" mini-series comes to light.<hr></blockquote>
never thought of that but if Simon wins,oh i hope so, wouldn't that mean marvel couldn't have a character called Captain America, no matter what color it would be?
question what is the status of the Seigel family's suit..has it been settled? also where does the family of Jack Kirby stand on this issue and is there a chance they would sue to acquire ownership of all the marvel characters that the King created?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Danilo Raul

11-13-2002, 08:17 PM

Not to be morbid but i hope Simon loses this one, Cap' belongs to Marvel and in the Avengers. Period.

DCD

11-13-2002, 09:29 PM

neondisease

11-13-2002, 09:41 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Tue Sorensen:
They can just call him The Captain again. No biggie.<hr></blockquote>

If they did that, they would no longer be able to cash in on and exploit the "America" aspect with 654156 different prestige format mini's.

Maybe it's time for Billy and Jo-Jo to call up Robbie and bring in The Fighting American.

enabler

11-13-2002, 11:20 PM

[quote]Maybe it's time for Billy and Jo-Jo to call up Robbie and bring in The Fighting American.<hr></blockquote>

Eek. As long as Liefeld doesn't draw it... otherwise, the character would never have feet. ;)

Capfan

11-14-2002, 12:01 AM

If Simon wins this, we'll see just how much value Marvel puts into Captain America. I hope they can work something out. I would hate see my favorite character be stripped from the Avengers and the Marvel universe in general.

Johnny Triangles

11-14-2002, 02:09 AM

[quote]Originally posted by riotgear:
So does this mean in six months will be reading about the mysterious new Avenger, Cap-X?<hr></blockquote>

HA! Good one!

dr.no

11-14-2002, 03:38 AM

Oh come on, it's Captain America...Why bother?

If Marvel is so fond of the character then they can use this situation to create a new one. Let's say the captain USA that is mentioned before and make him a gulf war veteran.

Voila the new Marvel universe symbol for America and ready for the 21st century.

arthur pendragon

11-14-2002, 04:43 AM

Strange days have found us.

<a href="http://www.medinnus.com/winghead/ga/cap_01_074.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.medinnus.com/winghead/ga/cap_01_074.jpg</a>

<a href="http://www.medinnus.com/winghead/ga/cap_01_075.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.medinnus.com/winghead/ga/cap_01_075.jpg</a>

BoyWonder

11-14-2002, 08:53 AM

[quote]Originally posted by John Doe:


We could finally settle the "Batman vs. Cap in hand to hand combat debate". My opinion is if you take away the devices, Batman's greater martial arts training (and possibly slightly dirtier fighting techniques) would barely edge out Cap's almost superhuman physical attributes. :D <hr></blockquote>

You aren't serious? Batman would tear Captain America to pieces. It would be an absolute massacre!

I would be very happy if Marvel lost this case. Captain America is one of the most awful characters ever created. The Marvel universe would be better off without him. It would also give Marvel an opportunity to develop a brand new superhero. That is something they haven't done under the new regime. They have rebooted lots of old characters, but produced hardly any new standout heroes.

RWNeal

11-14-2002, 09:38 AM

[quote]Originally posted by John Doe:

I think it would be really cool. We could finally settle the "Batman vs. Cap in hand to hand combat debate". My opinion is if you take away the devices, Batman's greater martial arts training (and possibly slightly dirtier fighting techniques) would barely edge out Cap's almost superhuman physical attributes. :D <hr></blockquote>

No doubt. But what about Bats v. Ultimate Cap? That guy's dirtier than the Bat. At least Batman's never stomped a guy in the face (that I remember).

some_bloke

11-14-2002, 10:31 AM

Excellent commentary.
Thank you.

Andy

Ed Cunard

11-14-2002, 11:48 AM

burmart

11-14-2002, 11:50 AM

I was actually sitting in Copyright class as I read this for the first time.

Anyway, This has settlement written all over it. Expect marvel to shell out some serious cash to make this problem go away. Copyright law is very unpredictable in terms of getting this stuff in front of a finder of fact, so it is in both sides best interests to settle.

Scott Senay

11-14-2002, 12:58 PM

I drew a pic of the bat symbol once. I'm suing for rights. What the hell ya know, DC deserves some crap too.

John Osen

11-14-2002, 01:54 PM

quote:
AnthonyL, the word is whether. Weather is what you go outside in without an umbrella.

Dear god no! Not my spelling!!!

Spelling the word "weather" correctly when you meant to write "whether" is not a spelling error. You simply didn't know the difference between two words with completely different meanings. Now's the part where you respond "Get a life, Pointdexter" like you did with Blues Brother. Let the flaming begin.

Raphe Cheli

11-14-2002, 02:55 PM

[quote]Originally posted by neondisease:

Maybe it's time for Billy and Jo-Jo to call up Robbie and bring in The Fighting American.<hr></blockquote>

Of course, Joe Simon helped create that character, too! The guy is quite the patriot.

AnthonyL

11-14-2002, 05:25 PM

[quote]Spelling the word "weather" correctly when you meant to write "whether" is not a spelling error. You simply didn't know the difference between two words with completely different meanings. Now's the part where you respond "Get a life, Pointdexter" like you did with Blues Brother. Let the flaming begin.<hr></blockquote>

You..posted this..in every thread in this forum?

Matt, I know you like to keep a free board going, but this guy is incredibly stupid and is flooding the forums in some misplace grudge match against me. It's pathetic and annoying, and i'm sure most of the readers here are already sick of it.

Anthony L

Redmond

11-16-2002, 01:51 PM

This reminds me of this loon in a comic shop who was going on about how he wanted to punch Liefeld's lights-out for stealing Cap from marvel in Fighting American. I just tought it was funny, considering it was just Simon keeping his own rights to his own creations. (unless I'm mistaken)So he was basicaly angry at some company for respecting the original parent of the property.

I wonder how he feels about Thor? :)

DougMac

11-18-2002, 11:05 AM

what would this mean to the JLA/Avengers crossover

Cliffy

11-18-2002, 11:16 AM

[quote]Originally posted by DougMac:
what would this mean to the JLA/Avengers crossover<hr></blockquote>

Nothing, probably. Marvel originally won on summary judgment, which is a very preliminary stage of the case. This decision reverses that, but it doesn't have any bearing on the ultimate question of who will win at trial, it's just means that Simon isn't out of the game yet. The trial which may now go forward could take years, and JLA/Avengers will be over by late 2003. Even if Simon does win eventually, what will most likely happen is that he'll license the character back to Marvel, because (given Cap's position in the Marvel Universe and the huge amount of material already published and available for reprints) Marvel will be willing to pay more than any other company would (who, even if they bought the rights Cap, wouldn't have the right to reprint old material, nor would they have the rights to, for instance, Sharon Carter, Nick Fury, Rick Jones, the Falcon, or even the Red Skull).

--Cliffy

Brett H.

11-18-2002, 12:16 PM

[quote]Originally posted by RDFozz:


Stretching my Powers of Recollection back to the original discussions of both this effort and the effort by Siegel or Shuster's family to regain the copyright on early Superman work, the copyright on the issues in question (I believe CAPTAIN AMERICA 1-10 from the 1940's were mentioned?) reverts to the author(s) of the work.

Captain America would still remain a registered trademark of Marvel. All the rest of the Cap work remains in Marvel's hands. And, I don't necessarily think this even prevents Marvel from publishing comics about Captain America.

What I recall this would do is let Simon license out the rights to develop stuff based on the items he would then own the copyrights to, namely, CAPTAIN AMERICA (1940's) 1-10. And the issue of what to call the stuff developed would be Simon's problem.

I am not a lawyer, and Cliffy may be (he's at least been to law school), so keep that in mind. This is just a recap of what had been said a few years back, when this case and the Superman case came up.

Speaking of which, unlike this case, nothing public seems to come of the Superman case. Last time the subject arose, speculation was that DC and the family had reached a settlement of some sort.

Hmmm, not Marvel's week for litigation. And in that case, how's about some movement on the late books class-action suit?<hr></blockquote>

This is an interesting point, and reminds me of the old Kevin McClory-Cubby Broccoli dispute over James Bond. McClory co-wrote what eventually became "Thunderball" with Ian Fleming, and several years later successfully asserted the right to utilize the storyline he co-created and the characters he used to essentially remake "Thunderball" as "Never Say Never Again."

However, when McClory tried to create new James Bond product, he was thwarted in court by Cubby Broccoli, the producer who's owned the rights to the 007 franchise since its inception.

Does this mean that Joe Simon can just doe issues 1 through 10 of the original run of Captain America, over and over?

Plus, the other valid point is that Simon is claiming copyright termination rights, but no mention has been made of the trademark issue. The name and likeness of Captain America are registered trademarks of Marvel, and trademarks are governed by different statutes than copyright.

Patrick Henry

11-18-2002, 09:01 PM

Captain America is more than just Simon's creation. He has grown incredibly in popularity as well as in the hearts of young Americans. The younger generations of this country need inspiration, something to keep the spirit of America alive. I, myself, have discovered something in these latest Captain America issues, something that is not usually shown to people. It's the message that we the people don't have to believe in everything our government says and does, it's the American dream that is trully worth protecting. Not meaning to sound like one of those crazy militamen in the southwest, but I believe it with all my heart.

Captain America is not a super-villain fighter like many other heroes in comics, pieces of paper with drawings that we pick up for $3 a piece. He represents an ideal, something worth keeping around, something worth spreading to younger generations. It's not the government that I want to promote, it's the idea that all men are created equal and that freedom from fear and oppression is worth fighting for. It's an ideal that many of us have forgotten. Something we consider to be "ancient writings". Captain America keeps it all alive, this greedy bastard is doing nothing but hurting people by taking "his" idea back. The moment someone began to realize it's message, Simon lost all rights to his hero. It belongs to the people, not him.

Nat Gertler

11-18-2002, 09:13 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Patrick Henry:
Captain America keeps it all alive, this greedy bastard is doing nothing but hurting people by taking "his" idea back. The moment someone began to realize it's message, Simon lost all rights to his hero. It belongs to the people, not him.<hr></blockquote>Wow, what a Communist sentiment coming from someone promoting the patriotic character!

Patrick Henry

11-18-2002, 09:21 PM

don't give me that communist bull shit. Communism is a form of economy, or haven't you attended 9th grade yet? This old fart is stealing away something that belongs to all of us. Did the man who owned the lot that the WTC was built on decide to pave it over and put up another building? NO, it belongs to more than just one man, the right goes to the people not a single sole. And that is not communism, it's anti-dictatorship, one man shouldn't take something away from thousands of people because he feels he can make a few extra bucks.

Nat Gertler

11-18-2002, 09:29 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Patrick Henry:
don't give me that communist bull shit. Communism is a form of economy, or haven't you attended 9th grade yet?<hr></blockquote>Yes, it's the form of economy where a person's possessions are assumed to belong to the state for the good of all. You know, the way you're treating Captain America.
[quote]This old fart is stealing away something that belongs to all of us.<hr></blockquote>No, he's not stealing it, nor does it belong to all of us. If he loses his case, Captain America will continue to be owned by Marvel.
[quote]And that is not communism, it's anti-dictatorship, one man shouldn't take something away from thousands of people because he feels he can make a few extra bucks.<hr></blockquote>Ah, so the man created something popular, and should be punished for this by being shorn of his rights and property? Sure sounds anti-American to me!

Patrick Henry

11-18-2002, 09:51 PM

if he created it to become popular and spread the American dream then why is he threatening to cease all production of the hero? Why is he threatening to completely destroy Captain America? You have no idea that Captain America will be sold to another company or ever again be published. For all you know this could be the end of it all. Avengers, the Ultimates, the Truth, and the new Cap comic will never be the same. What kind of team would it be without ole' cap? Thor and Ironman without the famous third hero is like the three stooges without Moe, it will not work.

If I were Simon I would only care about how much joy and inspiration my hero gives to thousands of people rather than selfish ambitions. Now think about this, would you like a man who gave everything so that people all over were pleased and inspired or a man who witholds something precious from everyone and keeps it for himself? The answer is obvious, he is entitled to his creation but not to destroy it. What if the Ford family wanted to recall every patented machinery used to make cars today? Sure they are entitled to it, but come on be reasonable.

And communism is strictly money, just because other things were considered part of the motherland in the soviet union doesn't mean it was out of communistic ideals. It was just to get rid of rich and poor, to make your neighbor less envyable. But if you haven't noticed, what I've been saying is called the majority decision, THE PEOPLE. This is called democracy.

Patrick Henry

11-18-2002, 09:54 PM

and I apologize for my clearly rude attitude, but I am seriously upset over this news. I am just in shock that my favorite hero could cease to exist. So I'm sorry for raising any tempers.

Nat Gertler

11-19-2002, 03:39 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Patrick Henry:
if he created it to become popular and spread the American dream then why is he threatening to cease all production of the hero?<hr></blockquote>I haven't seen him threatening that. I've just seen him threatening to switch who owns it. There is no guarantee that his owning the character would stop him from being used (in fact, Simon & Kirby's Fighting American character, while under Simon's control, has been published by at least three publishers in recent memory.) Nor is there any guarantee that Marvel continuing to own the character would mean it would see continued publication.
[quote]Thor and Ironman without the famous third hero is like the three stooges without Moe, it will not work.<hr></blockquote>So you want to deprive someone of ownership because you think it will give you better funnybooks?
[quote]If I were Simon I would only care about how much joy and inspiration my hero gives to thousands of people rather than selfish ambitions.<hr></blockquote>If you were Joe Simon you would be a talented individual who had built much and may wish to live off of his rights in his later years. If you were Joe Simon, you'd be someone who should be getting respect.
[quote]What if the Ford family wanted to recall every patented machinery used to make cars today? Sure they are entitled to it, but come on be reasonable.<hr></blockquote>No, the Ford family is not entitled to recall every "patented machinery" used to make cars today. You cannot force a recall of something just because you want it back. I doubt the Ford family holds many key patents themselves anyway. (If you're thinking of the work that Henry Ford did -- no patents issued during his lifetime are still valid.)
[quote]And communism is strictly money, just because other things were considered part of the motherland in the soviet union doesn't mean it was out of communistic ideals. It was just to get rid of rich and poor, to make your neighbor less envyable.<hr></blockquote>You may wish to reread the Communist Manifesto.
[quote]But if you haven't noticed, what I've been saying is called the majority decision, THE PEOPLE. This is called democracy.<hr></blockquote>Excuse me, but what you've been saying is the rantings of one person hiding behind someone else's name. I miss how that makes for a "majority decision". If you want to see how democracy is involved in this, then you have to deal with the laws passed by the democratically-elected Congress... the laws that make Simon's copyright reclamation theoretically possible.

brick66

11-19-2002, 02:05 PM

If I remember correctly, Simon is claiming that he was sole creator of Captain American because Jack Kirby, the co-creator, signed away his rights to Captain America and others in exchange for original artwork and rights to some other characters. I remember that Marvel management at the time (1980s?) was heavily criticized for its handling of Kirby, as was Lee because he worked out a more lucrative deal for himself. If I am wrong, please correct me.

If Simon should win he case, he would win the rights to Captain America as well as Steve Rogers and his origin, Bucky and the Red Skull. Any stories created by Marvel after that would be copyright infringement. I also think ( and again, please correct me if I'm wrong) that Simon could make the case, if he wins the case in district court, that was entitled to back royalties if the previous agreement with Marvel were voided.

And yes, Simon licenses his other characters and would probably want to sign a licensing agreement with Marvel.

Seeing as Simon is 93, he might not get to see a final ruling in this case, but he does have a son who runs the licensing business with him.

And what did happen in the Superman case?

11-19-2002, 03:57 PM

(deleted)

11-20-2002, 10:19 AM

(deleted)

Nat Gertler

11-20-2002, 10:39 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Renaud:
Than fans of Captain America should not hold to much of a grudge against him...<hr></blockquote>Fans of Captain America should not hold any grudge against him. He co-created or created (depending on which version you accept) the character.
[quote]at this age obviously he certainly is no longer in control of that case and others are doing this<hr></blockquote>Believe it or not, old people are capable of doing things. Old is not the same as dead.
[quote]And would Marvel actually want to pay for licence of Captain America and not have any control over the character for possible movie deals toys games...<hr></blockquote>Depending on what sort of license they took on, they could end up with full effective control of the character.
[quote]What Happen for Superman,wasn't it a 50/50 property court decision both the creator and DC owned that character<hr></blockquote>There has been no court case that I've heard of. Mrs. Siegel was simply dealing directly with DC. The 50/50 split was not a court decision, it would be due simply to Siegel having been a co-creator, and thus sharing the rights. There was no Shuster heir to reclaim the other half of the property.
[quote]I even heard Wolverine and many other Marvel characters could have their properties put in question by their creators<hr></blockquote>If comics are judged not to be eligible for freelance Work For Hire, it does open up a large kettle of fish.
[quote]Is it the end of Marvel AGAIN where every creators want their contribution of<hr></blockquote>Creator ownership does not mean the end of the publisher. Many publishers exist today publishing primarily creator-owned concepts.

TJMD

11-21-2002, 04:19 AM

[quote]Originally posted by daske:
Boy, the past couple days have been litigation central for this site! Seeing as how it seems en vogue to sue Marvel, I'm thinking of starting a class action suit for emotional damage caused by mid-90 multi-title crossovers and foil covers.

Just an idea. . .<hr></blockquote>

:cool:

Heh heh heh. Damn them for taking me for all my money.

*goes to sue McDonalds for not making him fat*

Hey if some dumbass lawyer will take the case of suing McDonalds for a guys obeseity, I can do the same for not getting fat from not going to McDonalds.

Batitude

11-21-2002, 03:28 PM

Batitude

11-21-2002, 03:32 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Jeremy Williams:
If it prevents Cap from being published the way it is, or hurt the company financialy, i will hunt the Simons to the end of the Earth. :p <hr></blockquote>

I certainly hope this is meant as a joke. If not it's probably THE most ignorant statement I've seen lately. Guess you'd really fell big hunting down a man in his 80's for trying to get a small portion of the Millions marvel has made off the charecter that HE created before he even worked for the company!
If you want the book to continue being published...bombard Marvel with your letter's to step up to the plate and PAY the man!

Batitude

11-21-2002, 03:44 PM

No Offense to those people who are pretty well informed here but many people need to learn a thing or two about Intellectual Property Law (Which I once dealt with day to day)
I somehow doubt that if you worked your whole like...maid minimal, at best money. Was approaching the end of your life while watching your former employer make Millions! You would want what is, your right to get based on changes in IP and Copyright law over the last few years. This backlash against Simon is at best puzzling and at worst Sickening.

Matt Hawes

11-28-2002, 11:43 PM

How can anyone knock Joe Simon?

Ah well...

<a href="http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/comicsunlimited@aol.com/" target="_blank">WOW! COOL STUFF!</a>

11-29-2002, 02:25 AM

(deleted)

The_Patriot

05-07-2007, 09:24 PM

I hate to say this... I really thought people already knew this (espeically someone calling himself Patrick Henry)....

The United States of America is NOT a democracy. We are a representative REPUBLIC with a strong democratic tradition.... Thus the name of one of the first true political parties in the USA was the Democratic-Republican Party. Before that there was the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties...

I really think that Joe is now trying to get back the rights to Captain America because he feels that Cap has not been written in character correctly for years now. Cap would never compare the USA to terrorists. He would never compare the USA morally with the Nazis that he fought so hard against. He lived through that time and would feel that we did what we had to during our fight to stop the Nazi's war of aggression against the world. The entire BS line that Cap wasn't the first Super Soldier, or that the US used African-American solders as lab rats... That was so over the top, just it was redicculous.

I'm sorry, but we really need to get someone at Marvel to realize something... Stop the anti-America BS and stop pushing their politics down our throats. Comics are suppose to be an ESCAPE form the political BS.

I want Captain America back as he always should be... The Defender of the American Dream, Protector of the American Ideals, and the Champion of the Consitution of the United States of America.

Yaw

05-08-2007, 05:17 AM

The entire BS line that Cap wasn't the first Super Soldier, or that the US used African-American solders as lab rats... That was so over the top, just it was redicculous.

how is that "redicculous?"

NoPrize

05-08-2007, 07:38 AM

The_Patriot

05-11-2007, 03:25 PM

There are many reasons why. The Tunguskee Experiments were a horrible abberation. The part that to me was over the top was when they had the US Army going in and killing everyone that had to do with the experiments, except for the one 'success' who was to be used as a 'decoy' for Captain America during missions. People would have KNOW something was going on, and would have investigated it. The entire use of African-American soldiers in such a manner (and their subsequent massacare) would have been made frontline news as soon as it was discovered and Captain America wouldn't have been caught 'unawares' that such a thing had happened. To offen we have 'liberals' in todays world trying to make the United States no better than (or acutally worse than) the horrible foes we are currently or have faced in the past. It makes me glad i don't have the money to purchase comic books now... when you have to live on $420 a month VA disability, you don't get alot of luxuries. Especially when those luxuries keeps making you feel like you being a veteran or active military that you are all that is evil in the world.

Yaw

05-13-2007, 12:51 PM

There are many reasons why. The Tunguskee Experiments were a horrible abberation.

The Tuskegee Experiment was NOT an aberration. The United States has a LONG history of unethical medical experimentation on African Americans (http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2007/01/medical_apartheid.html). To call it an aberration is not only ignorant but it is a slap in the face to thousands of African Americans who have suffered and lost their lives due to the simple fact that the American government views them as second-class citizens at best and subhuman at worst.

The part that to me was over the top was when they had the US Army going in and killing everyone that had to do with the experiments, except for the one 'success' who was to be used as a 'decoy' for Captain America during missions.

Captain America was a skinny kid who received the experiment AFTER the Black soldiers were experimented on. There is no reason to assume that he would have even thought about investigating this matter as he was knee-deep in the war

People would have KNOW something was going on, and would have investigated it.

Considering that it was wartime and Jim Crowism was still in effect it is highly doubtful that anyone would have investigated it and likely that many would not even have cared.

The entire use of African-American soldiers in such a manner (and their subsequent massacare) would have been made frontline news as soon as it was discovered and Captain America wouldn't have been caught 'unawares' that such a thing had happened.

Yeah right. Because in 1942 the exploitation of African Americans was big news.

To offen we have 'liberals' in todays world trying to make the United States no better than (or acutally worse than) the horrible foes we are currently or have faced in the past. It makes me glad i don't have the money to purchase comic books now... when you have to live on $420 a month VA disability, you don't get alot of luxuries. Especially when those luxuries keeps making you feel like you being a veteran or active military that you are all that is evil in the world.

So because you are a veteran of the U.S. military, we should ignore the atrocities committed by the American government against its own citizens? Please...

The_Patriot

05-13-2007, 05:07 PM

So because you are a veteran of the U.S. military, we should ignore the atrocities committed by the American government against its own citizens? Please...

I never said that... But using your own logic should we say that because you are African-American we should automatically except that the United States government is bent on genocide and forcing second class status on the African-American community?

I still remeber people saying MILLIONS of slaves died enroute to the United States during the slave trade, and that all of the dead was thrown into the sea and it so effected the ecosystem that sharks are still swimming that route looking for a free meal.

I've never said that the United States is pure as the wind driven snow. But on the grand scheme of things, we are a hell of alot better than many places i've been to. I've actually seen slavery still being practiced when i was in Africa back in 1993. Heck, it's been in the news when they talk about what's happening in Sudan. Is that our fault too?

IF (and a big IF) "Truth: Red, White and Black" was to have happened, and the truth had gotten to Captain America about an entire camp of African-American soldiers getting mudered by the US Army, it would get out because HE would have made a point to get that infromation out. It wouldn't have had to be Captain American to have blown the whissle on it. Anyone who would have found out about that would have made it a point to scream it form the rooftops. Soldiers who would have carried out the orders to masscare all those men would have told SOMEONE about it. Just because conspiracy theories exist, does not make them real. Because somewere down the line someone will change their mind and blow the lid off what has been going on.

BTW... During WW2 a group of US Navy personnel of African-American heritage went on strike because of hazzardous working conditions on the docks after a munitions explosion. That was BIG news. So would have been something like the massacare of everyone in that camp.

Michael Heide

05-14-2007, 10:02 AM

IF (and a big IF) "Truth: Red, White and Black" was to have happened, and the truth had gotten to Captain America about an entire camp of African-American soldiers getting mudered by the US Army, it would get out because HE would have made a point to get that infromation out.

Emphasis mine.

And by the way, The Crew and Young Avengers established Truth as official Marvel continuity.

The_Patriot

05-14-2007, 12:12 PM

Emphasis mine.

And by the way, The Crew and Young Avengers established Truth as official Marvel continuity.

Oh i know that it has become official part of the marvel continuity, thus my stance that Marvel has gone over the top and continues to do what it can to make America look bad.

Yaw

05-14-2007, 08:23 PM

Oh i know that it has become official part of the marvel continuity, thus my stance that Marvel has gone over the top and continues to do what it can to make America look bad.

like the pointi made that you so conveniently ignored. America has a history of engaging in medical experimentation on African Americans. There is a reason there is a cultural distrust of hospitals and doctors for many African Americans. The Tuskegee Experimentwas NOT an isolated case.

The_Patriot

05-14-2007, 08:55 PM

like the pointi made that you so conveniently ignored. America has a history of engaging in medical experimentation on African Americans. There is a reason there is a cultural distrust of hospitals and doctors for many African Americans. The Tuskegee Experimentwas NOT an isolated case.

If you have to go back almost a hundred years to make your case, then yes, it's not an isolated case. I didn't ignore your statements. I just chose not to have to say that in the PAST things have happened. But do you see it happening NOW and being condoned and supported? Hell, the founder of "Planned Parenthood" made the expressed statement that she wanted abortion to be used to remove all of the 'weeds' (ie people of colour) form american society. But do you see them making those kinds of statements today?

And you chose to ignore my statements that while America is not as pure as the wind driven snow, we are a hell of a lot better off here than anywhere else in the world.

Purplestain

05-15-2007, 05:18 AM

The_Patriot

05-15-2007, 11:19 AM

I don't know about ANYWHERE else in the world.

I've been around this planet three and a half times, been to almost a hundred countries and have found that they are all sorely lacking in the basic things we have in the United States. As Carlos Mencia has stated on his show many times, if it wasn't so damn much better than everywhere else, why are people dying to get in here?

JdRavnos

05-15-2007, 12:21 PM

The_Patriot

05-15-2007, 01:37 PM

The point of "The Truth" wasn't "Hey America sucks!" it was "Hey, no matter how you feel about your country, we should never forget we did some bad things in our past." In the last issue Isaiah's wife isn't angry or bitter, she's more concerned with letting Captain America know the truth, nothing more, nothing less.

The entire storyline tarnishes the character of Captain America when it tries to state that Cap was not the first Captain America. Totally breaking with what had came before. The creators of Captain America stated that Steve Rogers was the first (and only) sucessful recipent of the Super-Soldier Forumla.

JdRavnos

05-15-2007, 02:25 PM

The entire storyline tarnishes the character of Captain America when it tries to state that Cap was not the first Captain America. Totally breaking with what had came before. The creators of Captain America stated that Steve Rogers was the first (and only) sucessful recipent of the Super-Soldier Forumla.

So? It's hardly the first or worst retcon in comics history. And far less intrusive then "Everyone's buddy the Sentry, the first silver age hero that no one remembers."

And to be technical Steve was the only sucessful recipent of the Super Soldier Formula, unless you think the physical deformities that most of the recipients or the severe mental retardation that Isaiah suffered were intentional side effects. Steve Rogers received the only completely refined version of the Super-Soldier formula and suffered no ill-effects from it.

The_Patriot

05-15-2007, 03:09 PM

So? It's hardly the first or worst retcon in comics history. And far less intrusive then "Everyone's buddy the Sentry, the first silver age hero that no one remembers."

And to be technical Steve was the only sucessful recipent of the Super Soldier Formula, unless you think the physical deformities that most of the recipients or the severe mental retardation that Isaiah suffered were intentional side effects. Steve Rogers received the only completely refined version of the Super-Soldier formula and suffered no ill-effects from it.

That's right. And Steve Rogers recieved the formula in 1941, while Bradley recieved the nock-off forumla in 1942.

As for Retcons... I think all they do is ruin continuality. Look at the major changes in DC's superman comics with lex luthor's background to incorporate what's happening in the TV show Smallville.

Liliaeth

05-15-2007, 03:28 PM

I've been around this planet three and a half times, been to almost a hundred countries and have found that they are all sorely lacking in the basic things we have in the United States. As Carlos Mencia has stated on his show many times, if it wasn't so damn much better than everywhere else, why are people dying to get in here?

I have to say that living in Belgium, I wouldn't want to move to the US if they paid me for it.
Why would anyone sane want to unless they're living in starvation in their own country.

You have one of the worst forms of democracy, I mean, only two parties? How can anyone vote for a decent government if there's only two options that actually stand a chance of winning? I much prefer our own system or compromises between different parties, it ensures that people can't pull too much crap like the republicans have been doing in the US. And sure, we might have a king, but the fun thing about him... he has no power, none whatsoever, as such we have a continuity of rulership without the risk of him daring to stand in the way of the democratic proces the way that Bush seems to be doing. (hell the last time a king dared to hold back a decision made by the ruling body of the country, by refusing to sign the abortion law, he was put out of his position for a day, the act was signed and he was reinstated the day after. I wish you guys could do that to Bush whenever he shows signs of being to overtaken by his religious fanatacisme.)

JdRavnos

05-15-2007, 03:55 PM

That's right. And Steve Rogers recieved the formula in 1941, while Bradley recieved the nock-off forumla in 1942.

As for Retcons... I think all they do is ruin continuality. Look at the major changes in DC's superman comics with lex luthor's background to incorporate what's happening in the TV show Smallville.

Yeah, retcons suck. Like this one time, I read about this hack called Stan Lee who decided that Captain America didn't continue on after WWII and fight well into the 50s but rather got frozen in a block of ice. How lame is that?!? :rolleyes:

Yaw

05-15-2007, 04:21 PM

The_Patriot

05-15-2007, 04:22 PM

Yeah, retcons suck. Like this one time, I read about this hack called Stan Lee who decided that Captain America didn't continue on after WWII and fight well into the 50s but rather got frozen in a block of ice. How lame is that?!? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Just because Stan Lee (who had a major role in Cap's creation process) that was used to get Captain America to move form the Golden Age (in Timely Comics) to the Silver Age (in Marvel Comics), does not technically make it a bad retcon.

Bad retcons are those that TOTALLY destroys what came before and makes things 'not fit right' or just totally ignores things like, the year 1941 came BEFORE the year 1942.

The_Patriot

05-15-2007, 04:27 PM

I have to say that living in Belgium, I wouldn't want to move to the US if they paid me for it.
Why would anyone sane want to unless they're living in starvation in their own country.

You have one of the worst forms of democracy, I mean, only two parties? How can anyone vote for a decent government if there's only two options that actually stand a chance of winning? I much prefer our own system or compromises between different parties, it ensures that people can't pull too much crap like the republicans have been doing in the US. And sure, we might have a king, but the fun thing about him... he has no power, none whatsoever, as such we have a continuity of rulership without the risk of him daring to stand in the way of the democratic proces the way that Bush seems to be doing. (hell the last time a king dared to hold back a decision made by the ruling body of the country, by refusing to sign the abortion law, he was put out of his position for a day, the act was signed and he was reinstated the day after. I wish you guys could do that to Bush whenever he shows signs of being to overtaken by his religious fanatacisme.)

The United States has only two political parties? Bubba, were have you been? just check with Wiki and see ALL of the political parties that the United States has. We've got a lot of them. Yes the two BIG parties are the Republicans and Democrats, and they are the only ones whom have been able to make it on the national level. But there are alot of parties that have been working at breaking that hold on the national level.

As for the way things work in Belgium, and having a King who has no power.... Why have a king if they don't do anything? If the king sees something that will be bad in the long run and tries to stop it, and you punish them for it and say they are horrible for it. Why have the king? It's ovious you believe in Majority rule, why allow minority voices to have any voice in politics?

The_Patriot

05-15-2007, 04:28 PM

maybe because America invades other countries, kills innocent people, and exploits the landand people only to benefit Americans?

Or maybe its easier to make money in AMerica and people would rather make a quick buck here and eventually go back home to live like a king.

I know that is why I'm here. As a Panamanian either one of those reasons can work for me.

If you feel that way, why not leave? We're not making you stay here.

The United States allows people to leave ALL the time.

I really wish people who HATE this country would just leave it, and allow the people who love it and want to be here to take their place.

JdRavnos

05-15-2007, 04:34 PM

:rolleyes:

Just because Stan Lee (who had a major role in Cap's creation process) that was used to get Captain America to move form the Golden Age (in Timely Comics) to the Silver Age (in Marvel Comics), does not technically make it a bad retcon.

Bad retcons are those that TOTALLY destroys what came before and makes things 'not fit right' or just totally ignores things like, the year 1941 came BEFORE the year 1942.

You were talking about retcons in general, not bad retcons. You said "As for Retcons... I think all they do is ruin continuality." (emphasis mine) So now there are two types of retcons, those approved by you and those that aren't, which is different matter. I imagine if there was an internet in 1964, there would be fans who would be outraged by the fact that Stan had invalidated nearly a decade's worth of stories.

Yaw

05-15-2007, 04:45 PM

If you have to go back almost a hundred years to make your case, then yes, it's not an isolated case. I didn't ignore your statements. I just chose not to have to say that in the PAST things have happened. But do you see it happening NOW and being condoned and supported? Hell, the founder of "Planned Parenthood" made the expressed statement that she wanted abortion to be used to remove all of the 'weeds' (ie people of colour) form american society. But do you see them making those kinds of statements today?

And you chose to ignore my statements that while America is not as pure as the wind driven snow, we are a hell of a lot better off here than anywhere else in the world.

Now you are telling lies. I didn't go back a hundred years for anything. I gave you a reference to a book that catalogues these atrocities from colonial times to the present. The present meaning the 21st century.

1992-Columbia University study looking for a genetic link to violent behavior only recruited young black boys from poor neighborhoods in New York City. Researchers misled the parents, claiming their children were simply coming in for a series of tests and questions, when in fact they were given potentially risky doses of the same drug found in the Fen-Pfen weight loss pill.

1997- NY Psychiatric Insitute illegally tested the experimental drug, fenfluramine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine) on African American and Hispanic children. After 1997 the drug was banned by the FDA.

1994-1999- John Hopkins lead paint study (http://www.awaywolf.com/fluoridation/education/unethical_conduct/010825_my_kids_were_used.htm)

just to name a few.

There was another study as recent as 2001 in New York but I don't really have the time to expose your ignorance when you are just going to dismiss it anyway

The_Patriot

05-15-2007, 04:57 PM

Now you are telling lies. I didn't go back a hundred years for anything. I gave you a reference to a book that catalogues these atrocities from colonial times to the present. The present meaning the 21st century.

1992-Columbia University study looking for a genetic link to violent behavior only recruited young black boys from poor neighborhoods in New York City. Researchers misled the parents, claiming their children were simply coming in for a series of tests and questions, when in fact they were given potentially risky doses of the same drug found in the Fen-Pfen weight loss pill.

1997- NY Psychiatric Insitute illegally tested the experimental drug, fenfluramine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine) on African American and Hispanic children. After 1997 the drug was banned by the FDA.

1994-1999- John Hopkins lead paint study (http://www.awaywolf.com/fluoridation/education/unethical_conduct/010825_my_kids_were_used.htm)

just to name a few.

There was another study as recent as 2001 in New York but I don't really have the time to expose your ignorance when you are just going to dismiss it anyway

Just like you dismiss anything you don't like?

The difference in ignorance and not knowing new facts that you haven't had access to, is that ignorance doesn't admit to having made mistakes. And I did not KNOW of these studies you mentioned. The review of the book link you provided was focused heavily on what kind of HORRENDOUS and inhumane experiments was performed on slaves.

The difference between you and me, is that if i am given information that I did not know that proves me wrong, i say as much.

But even though horrendous medical experiments have been done in the past sixty years does not mean something like was done in "Truth" would have been ignored or brushed under the rug to cactch Captain America totally unawares. Nor does it change that the experiments of 'Truth' was done in 1942 while Steve Rogers was turned into Captain America in 1941.

The_Patriot

05-15-2007, 05:15 PM

You were talking about retcons in general, not bad retcons. You said "As for Retcons... I think all they do is ruin continuality." (emphasis mine) So now there are two types of retcons, those approved by you and those that aren't, which is different matter. I imagine if there was an internet in 1964, there would be fans who would be outraged by the fact that Stan had invalidated nearly a decade's worth of stories.

Let's see... On general i hate all retcons. Because it destroys what the creators of a comic has done and created. But a good Retcon is where the CREATORS of the comic or the characters put something into their own creations background to explain something they want to do with their creation.

Ever hear of something called the Animated Star Trek TV show? Roddenberry himself said that was non-cannon because he felt the shows entire run was not worthy of being included into the history of the Cannon Star Trek universe.

Stan Lee might have felt that all the stories of the '50s involving Captain America and Bucky just wasn't up to snuff. Stan Lee has stated he KILLED Bucky off the way he did to keep the Kid Sidekick out of Marvel Comics because he thought it was a really, really BAD idea.

Thus I believe this was one of the biggest reasons for his Retcon to get Captain America into the Silver Age of Comics with having Cap frozen in a block of ice, and have someone else wearing the Captain America costume during the '50s.

Was what they did hokey? Yes, it was very hokey.

Do i like that they did that? No I don't. But I do understand WHY they did it. They wanted to bring Captain America into their 'modern age' that we now look upon as the "Silver Age of Comics." They wanted to get away form the DC model of heroes having kid sidekicks, and this was how they decided to do it. Thus the death of Bucky was such and IMPORTANT death. By bringing Bucky back it cheapened the character. Sorry Mr. Brubaker, but that's the truth. You could have created 'Winter Soldier' in a different manner and had a good character without having made him as Bucky with a cyborg arm and a host of other problems.

Was "Truth: Red, White and Black" a well written and illustrated story? Yes, it was. Does it detract form Captain America? Yes, to me it does. It tarnishes how Captain America came about. To me it's the same thing as coming out and saying that because all of the medical secrets that the Nazis found by their inhumane experiments on the Jews and other 'undesireables' should be openly embraced by modern science because we would have done the exact same thing if we could have gotten away with it.

I honestly don't like how writers use the Retcon to change or add something to such a well established character just because they want to RIGHT now, and not think about the long term repircussions that will come form it.

Liliaeth

05-15-2007, 05:51 PM

The United States has only two political parties? Bubba, were have you been? just check with Wiki and see ALL of the political parties that the United States has. We've got a lot of them. Yes the two BIG parties are the Republicans and Democrats, and they are the only ones whom have been able to make it on the national level. But there are alot of parties that have been working at breaking that hold on the national level.

As for the way things work in Belgium, and having a King who has no power.... Why have a king if they don't do anything? If the king sees something that will be bad in the long run and tries to stop it, and you punish them for it and say they are horrible for it. Why have the king? It's ovious you believe in Majority rule, why allow minority voices to have any voice in politics?

The king serves a symbolic duty, he represents the country, that's what he's there for and he's doing a pretty good job of it. He also saves us from having a president with far too much power. No one man (or woman) should have the kind of power that Bush has.
I'm a monarchist, I like the king, but I wouldn't want him to have the right to determine laws, or to have the ability to declare war on his own without the support of the elected government.

I actually prefer three, four or even five parties having to work together to come to a compromise. Hell I've been voting socialist since I was 18, yet I wouldn't want the Socialists to be the only party with a say in the national government.

The_Patriot

05-16-2007, 02:17 AM

The king serves a symbolic duty, he represents the country, that's what he's there for and he's doing a pretty good job of it. He also saves us from having a president with far too much power. No one man (or woman) should have the kind of power that Bush has.
I'm a monarchist, I like the king, but I wouldn't want him to have the right to determine laws, or to have the ability to declare war on his own without the support of the elected government.

I actually prefer three, four or even five parties having to work together to come to a compromise. Hell I've been voting socialist since I was 18, yet I wouldn't want the Socialists to be the only party with a say in the national government.

In the United States the President DOES NOT have the power to declare war. That takes an act of CONGRESS to declare war. If you really think that Bush was able to declare war on his own, you really need to go and read a book on the American political system of checks and balances.

Stuart

05-18-2007, 10:37 AM

Nor does it change that the experiments of 'Truth' was done in 1942 while Steve Rogers was turned into Captain America in 1941.

No, it doesn't change that (though actually Steve became Cap in 1940, not 1941 - in Invaders #1, set in early December 1941, Steve notes that he became Cap almost exactly a year earlier). It's now been established and categorically stated that the experiments on the Camp Cathcart subjects came after Steve and were an attempt to recreate the formula which had been lost with the death of Erskine.

Stuart

05-18-2007, 10:41 AM

Captain America was a skinny kid who received the experiment AFTER the Black soldiers were experimented on. There is no reason to assume that he would have even thought about investigating this matter as he was knee-deep in the war

No, he was experimented on before they were. The rest of your statement is correct though.

JdRavnos

05-18-2007, 05:34 PM

No, it doesn't change that (though actually Steve became Cap in 1940, not 1941 - in Invaders #1, set in early December 1941, Steve notes that he became Cap almost exactly a year earlier). It's now been established and categorically stated that the experiments on the Camp Cathcart subjects came after Steve and were an attempt to recreate the formula which had been lost with the death of Erskine.

Where was this stated? Cause everything I read indicated that it was before, though I think the series still works well enough even if it was set after.

Drcharles

05-18-2007, 06:36 PM

Its a pity that Marvel can't work eomething out, so as to cease Simons' claims to Cap without too much bad feeling

Stuart

05-18-2007, 07:24 PM

Where was this stated? Cause everything I read indicated that it was before, though I think the series still works well enough even if it was set after.

The evidence is in the comics themselves - when The Truth was planned to be a stand-alone, out-of-continuity series, Isaiah could be seen to predate Steve, but as it was decided to make it part of 616 continuity, seemingly partway through the series, that became impossible (Robert Morales notes in The Truth's afterword "Truth was originally planned to be outside of the Marvel Universe’s official continuity. The editorial decision to place it into continuity meant explaining Timely Comics’ first publication of Joe Simon and Jack Kirby’s Captain America in 1940 – a full year before Pearl Harbor and the true start of our story.”)

Numerous accounts mark Rogers as being Captain America prior to Pearl Harbor, and his working with the Invaders (founded very shortly after Pearl Harbor) ties this in to multiple other heroes timelines. Bradley didn't enlist until after Pearl Harbor (February 1942 to be exact), and wasn't experimented on until later in 1942. This is even mentioned in The Truth, where Isaiah is reading a Captain America comic, and wondering how it could have come out prior to them being experimented on; Sergeant Evans dismisses it as propaganda, claiming the army would manufacture someone they would rename Steve Rogers to fit the comic, but (1) he's a cynic, and (2) since we know from Cap's own origin story that the details in that comic aren't propaganda (e.g. his real name is Steve Rogers), Evans is simply wrong.

Marvel confirms this in The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe and on their own site
http://www.marvel.com/news/comicstories.942
"The grandson of Isaiah Bradley, one of Captain America's successor's, Elijah took up the mantle of the Patriot to honor him."

The way The Truth fits now is that while someone in the US government was willing to finance Erskine's experiments on a small scale before the US entered the war, it wasn't given enough credence to permit mass testing until after (1) it succeeded on Rogers, thus proving the potential if they could mass produce it; (2) the Nazis successfully created a super-soldier, Master Man (late 1941); and (3) the US entered the war, suddenly making it imperative to someone in authority that the US figure out the process before the Nazis did.

Anyone in the comics referring to Isaiah as the first (such as Patriot, or anyone in Black Panther), does so because it's an urban legend (and in this case, an erroneous one) that Isaiah came first. Rogers either doesn't know (or rather, didn't know, since he's dead now) the exact timeline of when Isaiah and his compatriots were experimented on and so thinks they predate him, or else was simply too good mannered to correct the likes of Patriot, because regardless of when it happened, what happened was wrong, and correcting Patriot about who came first was hardly going to calm the angry youth down. Steve knew he wasn't the first super-soldier anyway (that's currently believed to be Protocide), and I doubt he'd care about such pointless distinctions. And honestly, what would have upset Steve more: knowing he got his powers as a result of the cruel and inhumane experimentation and murder of dozens of fellow soldiers, or knowing that those experiments and murders happened as a direct legacy of Steve undergoing the process? The first is awful, but makes you blameless (since he didn't know); the second is awful, and makes you, however unwittingly, the cause.